It is disturbing that Keir has not led in his honeymoon year.
Lawyers, intellectuals, academics, journos all love Keir. But, he does not seem to have the folksy charm to connect with the voters --- as Bill Clinton or Tony Blair did.
He comes across as cold, stilted, wooden. He is a male Theresa.
So, the header is right. Keir is a loser. He is probably a great guy, certainly compared to Boris. But, he is a loser and he is heading for defeat against Boris. Get rid.
Labour have plenty better options.
Really? Name three.
Better options .... Rayner or Nandy would be much trickier for Boris, I suspect.
Rayner, especially. would surely bring out the worst in the bumbling Old Etonian.
Any attractive woman would be a problem for him. I doubt he’d be able to focus on the job.
I suspect his charm would be lost on Ms Rayner.
I would love to see her in a top 4 job, like Shadow Home Sec. She would give Priti a very hard time, standing up for freedom.
She'd have to deal with idiots like Nadia Whittome first.
The morons rioting in Bristol last night have completely undermined any principled opposition to the Police Bill. Labour will be painted as weak on violence. The Tories will claim - wrongly - that this proves why such laws are needed (they're not as there are sufficient laws in place to deal with what happened last night). Meanwhile our freedoms are eroded further.
I have nothing but contempt for those Bristol fuckwits.
Sure, they are idiots but their violent actions are already illegal under existing law. The police Bill outlaws peaceful protest, not violent one's.
Worth remembering that we are at the 30th anniversary of the end of the Poll Tax. Sometimes protest and civil disobedience is necessary to make government's to listen.
I know. That is my precise point. The best way to protest would have been a demonstration which would be legal now but illegal under the new law.
What happened last night will not make the government listen. It will them more determined to go ahead. So we all lose.
That was exactly how the protest started, before the nutty minority went apeshit.
If it had been a legal protest with proper marshaling, no police would have been harmed. If you make protest illegal, you make it uncontrolled.
He must have seen my post - and yes the new policy is still insane!
The policy of the EU, EMA and various EU member states on AZ is now officially outwith my comprehension. I am wondering if this is deliberate and it is actually performance art. The theatre of the absurd. It is meant to bewilder
Go back to last year and the UK not joining the EU vaccine programme was ridiculed by Remainers. Right now it looks like literally the best decision the UK has made in decades. Maybe it was just pure luck, rather than any particular insight or design, but either way it was clearly the right decision.
It was by design. The UK scheme was designed around being an investment partner with pharma for manufacturing and capacity enlargement. Our deals with AZ, Novavax, CureVac and Valneva are based on that concept and our deal with Pfizer was based on speed and paying whatever Pfizer wanted to get in early.
The EU scheme was incompatible with both of these goals and the scheme would have required us to give up our existing deals with AZ and Pfizer to the EU scheme and for AZ scheme to be downgraded to purchaser rather than partner with all of the "best reasonable efforts" clauses it came with.
Joining the EU scheme was never going to be on the cards for us, the whole government approach to the virus has been "whatever it takes" and the aim for vaccines was to be among the first to be fully vaccinated (and we're probably going to be the first major nation to achieve that). That goal and our approach is the opposite to what the EU scheme asked us to do.
It is disturbing that Keir has not led in his honeymoon year.
Lawyers, intellectuals, academics, journos all love Keir. But, he does not seem to have the folksy charm to connect with the voters --- as Bill Clinton or Tony Blair did.
He comes across as cold, stilted, wooden. He is a male Theresa.
So, the header is right. Keir is a loser. He is probably a great guy, certainly compared to Boris. But, he is a loser and he is heading for defeat against Boris. Get rid.
Labour have plenty better options.
Really? Name three.
Better options .... Rayner or Nandy would be much trickier for Boris, I suspect.
Rayner, especially. would surely bring out the worst in the bumbling Old Etonian.
Any attractive woman would be a problem for him. I doubt he’d be able to focus on the job.
I suspect his charm would be lost on Ms Rayner.
I would love to see her in a top 4 job, like Shadow Home Sec. She would give Priti a very hard time, standing up for freedom.
She'd have to deal with idiots like Nadia Whittome first.
The morons rioting in Bristol last night have completely undermined any principled opposition to the Police Bill. Labour will be painted as weak on violence. The Tories will claim - wrongly - that this proves why such laws are needed (they're not as there are sufficient laws in place to deal with what happened last night). Meanwhile our freedoms are eroded further.
I have nothing but contempt for those Bristol fuckwits.
But, but that woman from Stroud, or possibly Hebden Bridge, did a performative poo right by a policeman, thus totally proving her point about the Patriarchy. Or climate change. Both.
The left have the wrong sort of idiots, with such a clear overlap with people who actually count, like ultra left MPs. The Tories manage to detach from the fascist right in a way that Labour don't quite detach from the fascist left. And while Tories have total idiots on the right like Steve Baker they are not like the total idiots of the left Labour MP style who say the wrong thing about burning police cars, rioting and killing the bill. The idiocy of Baker/Francois an co is of a more rarefied and theoretical nature.
There is nothing theoretical about the harm which the idiocy of Baker and Francois have done to various industries in this country. Just because they are based in unfashionable places and can't be filmed with a lot of screaming and shouting doesn't mean it isn't happening.
It is disturbing that Keir has not led in his honeymoon year.
Lawyers, intellectuals, academics, journos all love Keir. But, he does not seem to have the folksy charm to connect with the voters --- as Bill Clinton or Tony Blair did.
He comes across as cold, stilted, wooden. He is a male Theresa.
So, the header is right. Keir is a loser. He is probably a great guy, certainly compared to Boris. But, he is a loser and he is heading for defeat against Boris. Get rid.
Labour have plenty better options.
Really? Name three.
Better options .... Rayner or Nandy would be much trickier for Boris, I suspect.
Rayner, especially. would surely bring out the worst in the bumbling Old Etonian.
Any attractive woman would be a problem for him. I doubt he’d be able to focus on the job.
I suspect his charm would be lost on Ms Rayner.
I would love to see her in a top 4 job, like Shadow Home Sec. She would give Priti a very hard time, standing up for freedom.
She'd have to deal with idiots like Nadia Whittome first.
The morons rioting in Bristol last night have completely undermined any principled opposition to the Police Bill. Labour will be painted as weak on violence. The Tories will claim - wrongly - that this proves why such laws are needed (they're not as there are sufficient laws in place to deal with what happened last night). Meanwhile our freedoms are eroded further.
I have nothing but contempt for those Bristol fuckwits.
Sure, they are idiots but their violent actions are already illegal under existing law. The police Bill outlaws peaceful protest, not violent one's.
Worth remembering that we are at the 30th anniversary of the end of the Poll Tax. Sometimes protest and civil disobedience is necessary to make government's to listen.
I’m all for the right to protest and I am dismayed by a the glibness with which we throw away our liberties, however, last night revealed a big problem with most protest movements in the UK. They get hijacked by a ghastly combination of middle class hipsters, bored students, militant Marxists, sinister Antifa, ridiculous wankers, actual anarchists, and ladies who like to poo in public. Then they all take selfies and go on Instagram.
As a result they all run out of steam and end up absurd or reviled.
I had several friends who are - or were - passionately XR but left it in despair at the invasion of Marxism, identity politics and idiot rich girls from Kew who wanted to do special dances down Regent Street
I imagine protest movements in history have often been quite like this. Protest attracts eccentrics, students, rich people who have the time, BUT social media amplifies and broadcasts their wankiness, deleteriously
Like people been driven mad by Brexit, Trump Derangement Syndrome....Jon Oliver last night on his comedy show tied Trump calling coronavirus the China virus to the mass shooting of Asians Spa workers...
Is it an issue determined by QMV or by unanimity though?
Crucial point. Netherlands have already said, today, they will follow the agreed EU position, so we are relying on Ireland and Belgium to hold the line. If they can. If it’s unanimity
It scarcely matters. The pressure to agree this unanimously will be enormous.
The government needs to be on the phone to every pharma company in the world right now offering them every incentive to relocate to Britain.
I get a sense that this is already happening and not limited to pharma.
He must have seen my post - and yes the new policy is still insane!
The policy of the EU, EMA and various EU member states on AZ is now officially outwith my comprehension. I am wondering if this is deliberate and it is actually performance art. The theatre of the absurd. It is meant to bewilder
Go back to last year and the UK not joining the EU vaccine programme was ridiculed by Remainers. Right now it looks like literally the best decision the UK has made in decades. Maybe it was just pure luck, rather than any particular insight or design, but either way it was clearly the right decision.
It was a decision steered by Brexit and seen as a potential vindication of Brexit - superior to slow EU bureaucracy - even if, technically, we could have also opted out within the EU.
If we’d voted Remain I have no doubts we’d have joined the EU vax project. Solidarity, bro
If we'd voted Remain I have little doubt we'd have done our own thing.
We were never that much into solidarity and were always half-divorced. Brexit just delivered the other half.
It is disturbing that Keir has not led in his honeymoon year.
Lawyers, intellectuals, academics, journos all love Keir. But, he does not seem to have the folksy charm to connect with the voters --- as Bill Clinton or Tony Blair did.
He comes across as cold, stilted, wooden. He is a male Theresa.
So, the header is right. Keir is a loser. He is probably a great guy, certainly compared to Boris. But, he is a loser and he is heading for defeat against Boris. Get rid.
Labour have plenty better options.
Really? Name three.
Better options .... Rayner or Nandy would be much trickier for Boris, I suspect.
Rayner, especially. would surely bring out the worst in the bumbling Old Etonian.
That’s two.
I haven't really noticed Rayner have a sense of humour, which I think is a necessary weapon. Jess Phillips and Dr Rosena do.
Dr Rosena is by far the best choice.
Labour need to get out of London, or they are done for.
I am a Rayner fan, but I am not totally convinced by her "Purple Wall" appeal. There the young already vote Labour, it is the older vote that Labour need. I think she would struggle with those, and perhaps not appeal enough to the suburban middle class in the South.
Rayner could shore up the Labour vote where it is strong, but she won't get 2 million Tories to switch. Rayner is the dream candidate for nice, northern, public sector, NHS worshipping, faintly anti-business but like nice things and holidays Labour voters. I love them all but there aren't enough of them and, crucially, while they are lovely, when they try running the country the drive it into a tree, writing off the Citroen C1.
He knows that a vaccine export ban that hits the UK will do permanent damage to UK-EU relations and Ireland is without a doubt the biggest loser from that. There's also a fair chance that Ireland will get the UK's spare doses from mid-May if they just shut up. If Ireland are party to an export ban then those 60m Novavax doses will simply be given to other allies or the developing world.
Our vaccine surplus by June is going to ridiculous.
Also, of course, Ireland is home to a relatively huge Pharma sector, which, if it gets unnerved by EU wankery, could partly decamp to the UK or elsewhere. Northern Ireland would be especially tempting with sane UK laws, UK and EU market access, and promised lower Corp tax rates
I think Ireland has managed to end up in quite a difficult position as a result of the Brexit deal. It will be interesting to see what the real effect on their trade is when things start to get back to normal.
I'd be interested to hear how their lorry drivers are coping with the long sea journey to the EU.
It is disturbing that Keir has not led in his honeymoon year.
Lawyers, intellectuals, academics, journos all love Keir. But, he does not seem to have the folksy charm to connect with the voters --- as Bill Clinton or Tony Blair did.
He comes across as cold, stilted, wooden. He is a male Theresa.
So, the header is right. Keir is a loser. He is probably a great guy, certainly compared to Boris. But, he is a loser and he is heading for defeat against Boris. Get rid.
Labour have plenty better options.
Really? Name three.
Better options .... Rayner or Nandy would be much trickier for Boris, I suspect.
Rayner, especially. would surely bring out the worst in the bumbling Old Etonian.
Any attractive woman would be a problem for him. I doubt he’d be able to focus on the job.
I suspect his charm would be lost on Ms Rayner.
I would love to see her in a top 4 job, like Shadow Home Sec. She would give Priti a very hard time, standing up for freedom.
She'd have to deal with idiots like Nadia Whittome first.
The morons rioting in Bristol last night have completely undermined any principled opposition to the Police Bill. Labour will be painted as weak on violence. The Tories will claim - wrongly - that this proves why such laws are needed (they're not as there are sufficient laws in place to deal with what happened last night). Meanwhile our freedoms are eroded further.
I have nothing but contempt for those Bristol fuckwits.
Sure, they are idiots but their violent actions are already illegal under existing law. The police Bill outlaws peaceful protest, not violent one's.
Worth remembering that we are at the 30th anniversary of the end of the Poll Tax. Sometimes protest and civil disobedience is necessary to make government's to listen.
I know. That is my precise point. The best way to protest would have been a demonstration which would be legal now but illegal under the new law.
What happened last night will not make the government listen. It will them more determined to go ahead. So we all lose.
That was exactly how the protest started, before the nutty minority went apeshit.
If it had been a legal protest with proper marshaling, no police would have been harmed. If you make protest illegal, you make it uncontrolled.
What a bollocks statement....proper marshalled legal protests included things like the student fee protests....which ended in similar violence. Same with anti-globalisation, BLM, anti-statue topplers, etc etc etc.
Certain causes attract certain types of people who are looking to cause trouble, the far left smash up the banks, Starbucks, McDonalds lot to the far right lot that try to fight everybody.
It is disturbing that Keir has not led in his honeymoon year.
Lawyers, intellectuals, academics, journos all love Keir. But, he does not seem to have the folksy charm to connect with the voters --- as Bill Clinton or Tony Blair did.
He comes across as cold, stilted, wooden. He is a male Theresa.
So, the header is right. Keir is a loser. He is probably a great guy, certainly compared to Boris. But, he is a loser and he is heading for defeat against Boris. Get rid.
Labour have plenty better options.
Really? Name three.
Better options .... Rayner or Nandy would be much trickier for Boris, I suspect.
Rayner, especially. would surely bring out the worst in the bumbling Old Etonian.
Any attractive woman would be a problem for him. I doubt he’d be able to focus on the job.
I suspect his charm would be lost on Ms Rayner.
I would love to see her in a top 4 job, like Shadow Home Sec. She would give Priti a very hard time, standing up for freedom.
She'd have to deal with idiots like Nadia Whittome first.
The morons rioting in Bristol last night have completely undermined any principled opposition to the Police Bill. Labour will be painted as weak on violence. The Tories will claim - wrongly - that this proves why such laws are needed (they're not as there are sufficient laws in place to deal with what happened last night). Meanwhile our freedoms are eroded further.
I have nothing but contempt for those Bristol fuckwits.
Sure, they are idiots but their violent actions are already illegal under existing law. The police Bill outlaws peaceful protest, not violent one's.
Worth remembering that we are at the 30th anniversary of the end of the Poll Tax. Sometimes protest and civil disobedience is necessary to make government's to listen.
I’m all for the right to protest and I am dismayed by a the glibness with which we throw away our liberties, however, last night revealed a big problem with most protest movements in the UK. They get hijacked by a ghastly combination of middle class hipsters, bored students, militant Marxists, sinister Antifa, ridiculous wankers, actual anarchists, and ladies who like to poo in public. Then they all take selfies and go on Instagram.
As a result they all run out of steam and end up absurd or reviled.
I had several friends who are - or were - passionately XR but left it in despair at the invasion of Marxism, identity politics and idiot rich girls from Kew who wanted to do special dances down Regent Street
I imagine protest movements in history have often been quite like this. Protest attracts eccentrics, students, rich people who have the time, BUT social media amplifies and broadcasts their wankiness, deleteriously
I thought the sign of a good author was the lack of common Cliché.
He must have seen my post - and yes the new policy is still insane!
The policy of the EU, EMA and various EU member states on AZ is now officially outwith my comprehension. I am wondering if this is deliberate and it is actually performance art. The theatre of the absurd. It is meant to bewilder
Go back to last year and the UK not joining the EU vaccine programme was ridiculed by Remainers. Right now it looks like literally the best decision the UK has made in decades. Maybe it was just pure luck, rather than any particular insight or design, but either way it was clearly the right decision.
It was by design. The UK scheme was designed around being an investment partner with pharma for manufacturing and capacity enlargement. Our deals with AZ, Novavax, CureVac and Valneva are based on that concept and our deal with Pfizer was based on speed and paying whatever Pfizer wanted to get in early.
The EU scheme was incompatible with both of these goals and the scheme would have required us to give up our existing deals with AZ and Pfizer to the EU scheme and for AZ scheme to be downgraded to purchaser rather than partner with all of the "best reasonable efforts" clauses it came with.
Joining the EU scheme was never going to be on the cards for us, the whole government approach to the virus has been "whatever it takes" and the aim for vaccines was to be among the first to be fully vaccinated (and we're probably going to be the first major nation to achieve that). That goal and our approach is the opposite to what the EU scheme asked us to do.
The fact that our rejection of the scheme on the grounds that it would cause "costly delays" led to no reflection at all within the EU shows how much the UK was regarded as a joke state. In the words of Bob Monkhouse, they're not laughing now.
It is disturbing that Keir has not led in his honeymoon year.
Lawyers, intellectuals, academics, journos all love Keir. But, he does not seem to have the folksy charm to connect with the voters --- as Bill Clinton or Tony Blair did.
He comes across as cold, stilted, wooden. He is a male Theresa.
So, the header is right. Keir is a loser. He is probably a great guy, certainly compared to Boris. But, he is a loser and he is heading for defeat against Boris. Get rid.
Labour have plenty better options.
Really? Name three.
Better options .... Rayner or Nandy would be much trickier for Boris, I suspect.
Rayner, especially. would surely bring out the worst in the bumbling Old Etonian.
Any attractive woman would be a problem for him. I doubt he’d be able to focus on the job.
I suspect his charm would be lost on Ms Rayner.
I would love to see her in a top 4 job, like Shadow Home Sec. She would give Priti a very hard time, standing up for freedom.
She'd have to deal with idiots like Nadia Whittome first.
The morons rioting in Bristol last night have completely undermined any principled opposition to the Police Bill. Labour will be painted as weak on violence. The Tories will claim - wrongly - that this proves why such laws are needed (they're not as there are sufficient laws in place to deal with what happened last night). Meanwhile our freedoms are eroded further.
I have nothing but contempt for those Bristol fuckwits.
Sure, they are idiots but their violent actions are already illegal under existing law. The police Bill outlaws peaceful protest, not violent one's.
Of course the argument is ludicrous. But you can bet that won't stop the Tories from claiming that opposition to the bill equates to going soft on the rioters. And they will be successful. Maybe if they go for any subtlety/nuance they will try to argue that the changes were requested by the police and that opposition is undermining the police (who were the targets in Bristol).
I for one would like to thank the comrades in Bristol for doing the kind of sterling, unpaid PR work for Priti Patel and her Bill that Ursula von der Leyen is doing for the Government as a whole...
He must have seen my post - and yes the new policy is still insane!
The policy of the EU, EMA and various EU member states on AZ is now officially outwith my comprehension. I am wondering if this is deliberate and it is actually performance art. The theatre of the absurd. It is meant to bewilder
Go back to last year and the UK not joining the EU vaccine programme was ridiculed by Remainers. Right now it looks like literally the best decision the UK has made in decades. Maybe it was just pure luck, rather than any particular insight or design, but either way it was clearly the right decision.
It was by design. The UK scheme was designed around being an investment partner with pharma for manufacturing and capacity enlargement. Our deals with AZ, Novavax, CureVac and Valneva are based on that concept and our deal with Pfizer was based on speed and paying whatever Pfizer wanted to get in early.
The EU scheme was incompatible with both of these goals and the scheme would have required us to give up our existing deals with AZ and Pfizer to the EU scheme and for AZ scheme to be downgraded to purchaser rather than partner with all of the "best reasonable efforts" clauses it came with.
Joining the EU scheme was never going to be on the cards for us, the whole government approach to the virus has been "whatever it takes" and the aim for vaccines was to be among the first to be fully vaccinated (and we're probably going to be the first major nation to achieve that). That goal and our approach is the opposite to what the EU scheme asked us to do.
Fair enough, I knew most of that. I shouldn't have downplayed what the VTF did, or let the EU off the hook, it was clearly design that lead to the greater success. It must be going soft.
He must have seen my post - and yes the new policy is still insane!
The policy of the EU, EMA and various EU member states on AZ is now officially outwith my comprehension. I am wondering if this is deliberate and it is actually performance art. The theatre of the absurd. It is meant to bewilder
Go back to last year and the UK not joining the EU vaccine programme was ridiculed by Remainers. Right now it looks like literally the best decision the UK has made in decades. Maybe it was just pure luck, rather than any particular insight or design, but either way it was clearly the right decision.
It was by design. The UK scheme was designed around being an investment partner with pharma for manufacturing and capacity enlargement. Our deals with AZ, Novavax, CureVac and Valneva are based on that concept and our deal with Pfizer was based on speed and paying whatever Pfizer wanted to get in early.
The EU scheme was incompatible with both of these goals and the scheme would have required us to give up our existing deals with AZ and Pfizer to the EU scheme and for AZ scheme to be downgraded to purchaser rather than partner with all of the "best reasonable efforts" clauses it came with.
Joining the EU scheme was never going to be on the cards for us, the whole government approach to the virus has been "whatever it takes" and the aim for vaccines was to be among the first to be fully vaccinated (and we're probably going to be the first major nation to achieve that). That goal and our approach is the opposite to what the EU scheme asked us to do.
The fact that our rejection of the scheme on the grounds that it would cause "costly delays" led to no reflection at all within the EU shows how much the UK was regarded as a joke state. In the words of Bob Monkhouse, they're not laughing now.
WG, still can't get over the reality that you are a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside a enigma.
It is disturbing that Keir has not led in his honeymoon year.
Lawyers, intellectuals, academics, journos all love Keir. But, he does not seem to have the folksy charm to connect with the voters --- as Bill Clinton or Tony Blair did.
He comes across as cold, stilted, wooden. He is a male Theresa.
So, the header is right. Keir is a loser. He is probably a great guy, certainly compared to Boris. But, he is a loser and he is heading for defeat against Boris. Get rid.
Labour have plenty better options.
Really? Name three.
Better options .... Rayner or Nandy would be much trickier for Boris, I suspect.
Rayner, especially. would surely bring out the worst in the bumbling Old Etonian.
Any attractive woman would be a problem for him. I doubt he’d be able to focus on the job.
I suspect his charm would be lost on Ms Rayner.
I would love to see her in a top 4 job, like Shadow Home Sec. She would give Priti a very hard time, standing up for freedom.
She'd have to deal with idiots like Nadia Whittome first.
The morons rioting in Bristol last night have completely undermined any principled opposition to the Police Bill. Labour will be painted as weak on violence. The Tories will claim - wrongly - that this proves why such laws are needed (they're not as there are sufficient laws in place to deal with what happened last night). Meanwhile our freedoms are eroded further.
I have nothing but contempt for those Bristol fuckwits.
Sure, they are idiots but their violent actions are already illegal under existing law. The police Bill outlaws peaceful protest, not violent one's.
Worth remembering that we are at the 30th anniversary of the end of the Poll Tax. Sometimes protest and civil disobedience is necessary to make government's to listen.
I know. That is my precise point. The best way to protest would have been a demonstration which would be legal now but illegal under the new law.
What happened last night will not make the government listen. It will them more determined to go ahead. So we all lose.
That was exactly how the protest started, before the nutty minority went apeshit.
If it had been a legal protest with proper marshaling, no police would have been harmed. If you make protest illegal, you make it uncontrolled.
It is disturbing that Keir has not led in his honeymoon year.
Lawyers, intellectuals, academics, journos all love Keir. But, he does not seem to have the folksy charm to connect with the voters --- as Bill Clinton or Tony Blair did.
He comes across as cold, stilted, wooden. He is a male Theresa.
So, the header is right. Keir is a loser. He is probably a great guy, certainly compared to Boris. But, he is a loser and he is heading for defeat against Boris. Get rid.
Labour have plenty better options.
Really? Name three.
Better options .... Rayner or Nandy would be much trickier for Boris, I suspect.
Rayner, especially. would surely bring out the worst in the bumbling Old Etonian.
Any attractive woman would be a problem for him. I doubt he’d be able to focus on the job.
I suspect his charm would be lost on Ms Rayner.
I would love to see her in a top 4 job, like Shadow Home Sec. She would give Priti a very hard time, standing up for freedom.
She'd have to deal with idiots like Nadia Whittome first.
The morons rioting in Bristol last night have completely undermined any principled opposition to the Police Bill. Labour will be painted as weak on violence. The Tories will claim - wrongly - that this proves why such laws are needed (they're not as there are sufficient laws in place to deal with what happened last night). Meanwhile our freedoms are eroded further.
I have nothing but contempt for those Bristol fuckwits.
Sure, they are idiots but their violent actions are already illegal under existing law. The police Bill outlaws peaceful protest, not violent one's.
Worth remembering that we are at the 30th anniversary of the end of the Poll Tax. Sometimes protest and civil disobedience is necessary to make government's to listen.
I’m all for the right to protest and I am dismayed by a the glibness with which we throw away our liberties, however, last night revealed a big problem with most protest movements in the UK. They get hijacked by a ghastly combination of middle class hipsters, bored students, militant Marxists, sinister Antifa, ridiculous wankers, actual anarchists, and ladies who like to poo in public. Then they all take selfies and go on Instagram.
As a result they all run out of steam and end up absurd or reviled.
I had several friends who are - or were - passionately XR but left it in despair at the invasion of Marxism, identity politics and idiot rich girls from Kew who wanted to do special dances down Regent Street
I imagine protest movements in history have often been quite like this. Protest attracts eccentrics, students, rich people who have the time, BUT social media amplifies and broadcasts their wankiness, deleteriously
All the more reason to be supportive of protests being properly marshalled with sensitive policing. Proper marshalling is the way to keep the crazies under control.
I’m all for the right to protest and I am dismayed by a the glibness with which we throw away our liberties, however, last night revealed a big problem with most protest movements in the UK. They get hijacked by a ghastly combination of middle class hipsters, bored students, militant Marxists, sinister Antifa, ridiculous wankers, actual anarchists, and ladies who like to poo in public. Then they all take selfies and go on Instagram.
As a result they all run out of steam and end up absurd or reviled.
I had several friends who are - or were - passionately XR but left it in despair at the invasion of Marxism, identity politics and idiot rich girls from Kew who wanted to do special dances down Regent Street
I imagine protest movements in history have often been quite like this. Protest attracts eccentrics, students, rich people who have the time, BUT social media amplifies and broadcasts their wankiness, deleteriously
Do the protests in places like Thailand, Hong Kong, and Myanmar attract the same oxygen wasters? They don't seem to, or at least they don't get any publicity in the West.
He must have seen my post - and yes the new policy is still insane!
The policy of the EU, EMA and various EU member states on AZ is now officially outwith my comprehension. I am wondering if this is deliberate and it is actually performance art. The theatre of the absurd. It is meant to bewilder
Go back to last year and the UK not joining the EU vaccine programme was ridiculed by Remainers. Right now it looks like literally the best decision the UK has made in decades. Maybe it was just pure luck, rather than any particular insight or design, but either way it was clearly the right decision.
It was by design. The UK scheme was designed around being an investment partner with pharma for manufacturing and capacity enlargement. Our deals with AZ, Novavax, CureVac and Valneva are based on that concept and our deal with Pfizer was based on speed and paying whatever Pfizer wanted to get in early.
The EU scheme was incompatible with both of these goals and the scheme would have required us to give up our existing deals with AZ and Pfizer to the EU scheme and for AZ scheme to be downgraded to purchaser rather than partner with all of the "best reasonable efforts" clauses it came with.
Joining the EU scheme was never going to be on the cards for us, the whole government approach to the virus has been "whatever it takes" and the aim for vaccines was to be among the first to be fully vaccinated (and we're probably going to be the first major nation to achieve that). That goal and our approach is the opposite to what the EU scheme asked us to do.
The fact that our rejection of the scheme on the grounds that it would cause "costly delays" led to no reflection at all within the EU shows how much the UK was regarded as a joke state. In the words of Bob Monkhouse, they're not laughing now.
To be fair, the EU arguments did seem plausible - combine the spending power of the EU, enforce this on pharma, get the best deal and the quickest jabs, don’t get out-muscled by America or China. That’s why I think a Remaining UK govt would have fallen into line. It makes sense, prima facie
I am glad our Leaving, Brexiteering govt saw a different route, and realised the flaws in the EU’s proposal
The idea that prime minister Cameron, his winning Remain vote in his wallet, would have opted out, is nuts. He’s a pragmatic, instinctive europhile who lacks imagination
He must have seen my post - and yes the new policy is still insane!
The policy of the EU, EMA and various EU member states on AZ is now officially outwith my comprehension. I am wondering if this is deliberate and it is actually performance art. The theatre of the absurd. It is meant to bewilder
Go back to last year and the UK not joining the EU vaccine programme was ridiculed by Remainers. Right now it looks like literally the best decision the UK has made in decades. Maybe it was just pure luck, rather than any particular insight or design, but either way it was clearly the right decision.
It was by design. The UK scheme was designed around being an investment partner with pharma for manufacturing and capacity enlargement. Our deals with AZ, Novavax, CureVac and Valneva are based on that concept and our deal with Pfizer was based on speed and paying whatever Pfizer wanted to get in early.
The EU scheme was incompatible with both of these goals and the scheme would have required us to give up our existing deals with AZ and Pfizer to the EU scheme and for AZ scheme to be downgraded to purchaser rather than partner with all of the "best reasonable efforts" clauses it came with.
Joining the EU scheme was never going to be on the cards for us, the whole government approach to the virus has been "whatever it takes" and the aim for vaccines was to be among the first to be fully vaccinated (and we're probably going to be the first major nation to achieve that). That goal and our approach is the opposite to what the EU scheme asked us to do.
The fact that our rejection of the scheme on the grounds that it would cause "costly delays" led to no reflection at all within the EU shows how much the UK was regarded as a joke state. In the words of Bob Monkhouse, they're not laughing now.
To be fair, the EU arguments did seem plausible - combine the spending power of the EU, enforce this on pharma, get the best deal and the quickest jabs, don’t get out-muscled by America or China. That’s why I think a Remaining UK govt would have fallen into line. It makes sense, prima facie
I am glad our Leaving, Brexiteering govt saw a different route, and realised the flaws in the EU’s proposal
The idea that prime minister Cameron, his winning Remain vote in his wallet, would have opted out, is nuts. He’s a pragmatic, instinctive europhile who lacks imagination
Didn't work out very well for PPE or ventilators either.....
He must have seen my post - and yes the new policy is still insane!
The policy of the EU, EMA and various EU member states on AZ is now officially outwith my comprehension. I am wondering if this is deliberate and it is actually performance art. The theatre of the absurd. It is meant to bewilder
Go back to last year and the UK not joining the EU vaccine programme was ridiculed by Remainers. Right now it looks like literally the best decision the UK has made in decades. Maybe it was just pure luck, rather than any particular insight or design, but either way it was clearly the right decision.
It was by design. The UK scheme was designed around being an investment partner with pharma for manufacturing and capacity enlargement. Our deals with AZ, Novavax, CureVac and Valneva are based on that concept and our deal with Pfizer was based on speed and paying whatever Pfizer wanted to get in early.
The EU scheme was incompatible with both of these goals and the scheme would have required us to give up our existing deals with AZ and Pfizer to the EU scheme and for AZ scheme to be downgraded to purchaser rather than partner with all of the "best reasonable efforts" clauses it came with.
Joining the EU scheme was never going to be on the cards for us, the whole government approach to the virus has been "whatever it takes" and the aim for vaccines was to be among the first to be fully vaccinated (and we're probably going to be the first major nation to achieve that). That goal and our approach is the opposite to what the EU scheme asked us to do.
The fact that our rejection of the scheme on the grounds that it would cause "costly delays" led to no reflection at all within the EU shows how much the UK was regarded as a joke state. In the words of Bob Monkhouse, they're not laughing now.
To be fair, the EU arguments did seem plausible - combine the spending power of the EU, enforce this on pharma, get the best deal and the quickest jabs, don’t get out-muscled by America or China. That’s why I think a Remaining UK govt would have fallen into line. It makes sense, prima facie
I am glad our Leaving, Brexiteering govt saw a different route, and realised the flaws in the EU’s proposal
The idea that prime minister Cameron, his winning Remain vote in his wallet, would have opted out, is nuts. He’s a pragmatic, instinctive europhile who lacks imagination
The spending power of the EU only works if the EU is actually prepared to, er, spend money!
It is disturbing that Keir has not led in his honeymoon year.
Lawyers, intellectuals, academics, journos all love Keir. But, he does not seem to have the folksy charm to connect with the voters --- as Bill Clinton or Tony Blair did.
He comes across as cold, stilted, wooden. He is a male Theresa.
So, the header is right. Keir is a loser. He is probably a great guy, certainly compared to Boris. But, he is a loser and he is heading for defeat against Boris. Get rid.
Labour have plenty better options.
Really? Name three.
Better options .... Rayner or Nandy would be much trickier for Boris, I suspect.
Rayner, especially. would surely bring out the worst in the bumbling Old Etonian.
Any attractive woman would be a problem for him. I doubt he’d be able to focus on the job.
I suspect his charm would be lost on Ms Rayner.
I would love to see her in a top 4 job, like Shadow Home Sec. She would give Priti a very hard time, standing up for freedom.
She'd have to deal with idiots like Nadia Whittome first.
The morons rioting in Bristol last night have completely undermined any principled opposition to the Police Bill. Labour will be painted as weak on violence. The Tories will claim - wrongly - that this proves why such laws are needed (they're not as there are sufficient laws in place to deal with what happened last night). Meanwhile our freedoms are eroded further.
I have nothing but contempt for those Bristol fuckwits.
Sure, they are idiots but their violent actions are already illegal under existing law. The police Bill outlaws peaceful protest, not violent one's.
Worth remembering that we are at the 30th anniversary of the end of the Poll Tax. Sometimes protest and civil disobedience is necessary to make government's to listen.
I know. That is my precise point. The best way to protest would have been a demonstration which would be legal now but illegal under the new law.
What happened last night will not make the government listen. It will them more determined to go ahead. So we all lose.
That was exactly how the protest started, before the nutty minority went apeshit.
If it had been a legal protest with proper marshaling, no police would have been harmed. If you make protest illegal, you make it uncontrolled.
What a bollocks statement....proper marshalled legal protests included things like the student fee protests....which ended in similar violence. Same with anti-globalisation, BLM, anti-statue topplers, etc etc etc.
Certain causes attract certain types of people who are looking to cause trouble, the far left smash up the banks, Starbucks, McDonalds lot to the far right lot that try to fight everybody.
Yes, but criminal damage and assault are already illegal. Why criminalise the peaceful protesters too? One day you too may want to protest something.
It is disturbing that Keir has not led in his honeymoon year.
Lawyers, intellectuals, academics, journos all love Keir. But, he does not seem to have the folksy charm to connect with the voters --- as Bill Clinton or Tony Blair did.
He comes across as cold, stilted, wooden. He is a male Theresa.
So, the header is right. Keir is a loser. He is probably a great guy, certainly compared to Boris. But, he is a loser and he is heading for defeat against Boris. Get rid.
Labour have plenty better options.
Really? Name three.
Better options .... Rayner or Nandy would be much trickier for Boris, I suspect.
Rayner, especially. would surely bring out the worst in the bumbling Old Etonian.
Any attractive woman would be a problem for him. I doubt he’d be able to focus on the job.
I suspect his charm would be lost on Ms Rayner.
I would love to see her in a top 4 job, like Shadow Home Sec. She would give Priti a very hard time, standing up for freedom.
She'd have to deal with idiots like Nadia Whittome first.
The morons rioting in Bristol last night have completely undermined any principled opposition to the Police Bill. Labour will be painted as weak on violence. The Tories will claim - wrongly - that this proves why such laws are needed (they're not as there are sufficient laws in place to deal with what happened last night). Meanwhile our freedoms are eroded further.
I have nothing but contempt for those Bristol fuckwits.
Sure, they are idiots but their violent actions are already illegal under existing law. The police Bill outlaws peaceful protest, not violent one's.
Worth remembering that we are at the 30th anniversary of the end of the Poll Tax. Sometimes protest and civil disobedience is necessary to make government's to listen.
I’m all for the right to protest and I am dismayed by a the glibness with which we throw away our liberties, however, last night revealed a big problem with most protest movements in the UK. They get hijacked by a ghastly combination of middle class hipsters, bored students, militant Marxists, sinister Antifa, ridiculous wankers, actual anarchists, and ladies who like to poo in public. Then they all take selfies and go on Instagram.
As a result they all run out of steam and end up absurd or reviled.
I had several friends who are - or were - passionately XR but left it in despair at the invasion of Marxism, identity politics and idiot rich girls from Kew who wanted to do special dances down Regent Street
I imagine protest movements in history have often been quite like this. Protest attracts eccentrics, students, rich people who have the time, BUT social media amplifies and broadcasts their wankiness, deleteriously
You need people willing to be a bit crazy to take on and change a system which may well need changing, and that comes with some risks. But the hijacking obsessives and performative perennial protestors really are a fantastic recruiter for the Conservatives electorally, which must be very frustrating for people supporting that cause.
I'd have thought one of the best ways to enact radical change is for people to not see it as radical change. That doesn't require being dishonest, it can be as simple as not also peppering your plans with every cliched radical message possible. Be targeted and slick. So even if it is an acknowledged radical proposal, it doesn't spook people like doommongering revolutionary rhetoric from the riotous element.
More than anything else this new breed of Corbynite MPs and the like are just plain ineffective at pushing for what they want, when despite his critics if Keir proposed the same thing he'd get more of an airing. Indeed, they're more effective at causing a counter-reaction.
The Tories are not masters of politics, but you don't have to make it easy for them even so.
He must have seen my post - and yes the new policy is still insane!
The policy of the EU, EMA and various EU member states on AZ is now officially outwith my comprehension. I am wondering if this is deliberate and it is actually performance art. The theatre of the absurd. It is meant to bewilder
Go back to last year and the UK not joining the EU vaccine programme was ridiculed by Remainers. Right now it looks like literally the best decision the UK has made in decades. Maybe it was just pure luck, rather than any particular insight or design, but either way it was clearly the right decision.
It was by design. The UK scheme was designed around being an investment partner with pharma for manufacturing and capacity enlargement. Our deals with AZ, Novavax, CureVac and Valneva are based on that concept and our deal with Pfizer was based on speed and paying whatever Pfizer wanted to get in early.
The EU scheme was incompatible with both of these goals and the scheme would have required us to give up our existing deals with AZ and Pfizer to the EU scheme and for AZ scheme to be downgraded to purchaser rather than partner with all of the "best reasonable efforts" clauses it came with.
Joining the EU scheme was never going to be on the cards for us, the whole government approach to the virus has been "whatever it takes" and the aim for vaccines was to be among the first to be fully vaccinated (and we're probably going to be the first major nation to achieve that). That goal and our approach is the opposite to what the EU scheme asked us to do.
The fact that our rejection of the scheme on the grounds that it would cause "costly delays" led to no reflection at all within the EU shows how much the UK was regarded as a joke state. In the words of Bob Monkhouse, they're not laughing now.
To be fair, the EU arguments did seem plausible - combine the spending power of the EU, enforce this on pharma, get the best deal and the quickest jabs, don’t get out-muscled by America or China. That’s why I think a Remaining UK govt would have fallen into line. It makes sense, prima facie
I am glad our Leaving, Brexiteering govt saw a different route, and realised the flaws in the EU’s proposal
The idea that prime minister Cameron, his winning Remain vote in his wallet, would have opted out, is nuts. He’s a pragmatic, instinctive europhile who lacks imagination
The spending power of the EU only works if the EU is actually prepared to, er, spend money!
The other problem is with vaccines it is time sensitive and very limited supppy. EU usual tactics of waiting until 11.59pm before the deadline on deals is the worst approach given these conditions.
I’m all for the right to protest and I am dismayed by a the glibness with which we throw away our liberties, however, last night revealed a big problem with most protest movements in the UK. They get hijacked by a ghastly combination of middle class hipsters, bored students, militant Marxists, sinister Antifa, ridiculous wankers, actual anarchists, and ladies who like to poo in public. Then they all take selfies and go on Instagram.
As a result they all run out of steam and end up absurd or reviled.
I had several friends who are - or were - passionately XR but left it in despair at the invasion of Marxism, identity politics and idiot rich girls from Kew who wanted to do special dances down Regent Street
I imagine protest movements in history have often been quite like this. Protest attracts eccentrics, students, rich people who have the time, BUT social media amplifies and broadcasts their wankiness, deleteriously
Do the protests in places like Thailand, Hong Kong, and Myanmar attract the same oxygen wasters? They don't seem to, or at least they don't get any publicity in the West.
No, not at all. Take the Thai protests. I know them well. It’s mainly students but it’s also been middle class housewives, farmers, all sorts. They are serious and disciplined. And have clever messaging and there is no embarrassing narcissistic social media pantomime or at least very little
This is partly because the stakes are so much higher. Many have been shot dead over the years in Thai protests. That focuses the mind and probably deters the effete.
Stakes even higher in Myanmar.
Perhaps the plod should mow down a few XR crusties to improve the quality of future protests?
It is disturbing that Keir has not led in his honeymoon year.
Lawyers, intellectuals, academics, journos all love Keir. But, he does not seem to have the folksy charm to connect with the voters --- as Bill Clinton or Tony Blair did.
He comes across as cold, stilted, wooden. He is a male Theresa.
So, the header is right. Keir is a loser. He is probably a great guy, certainly compared to Boris. But, he is a loser and he is heading for defeat against Boris. Get rid.
Labour have plenty better options.
Really? Name three.
Better options .... Rayner or Nandy would be much trickier for Boris, I suspect.
Rayner, especially. would surely bring out the worst in the bumbling Old Etonian.
Any attractive woman would be a problem for him. I doubt he’d be able to focus on the job.
I suspect his charm would be lost on Ms Rayner.
I would love to see her in a top 4 job, like Shadow Home Sec. She would give Priti a very hard time, standing up for freedom.
She'd have to deal with idiots like Nadia Whittome first.
The morons rioting in Bristol last night have completely undermined any principled opposition to the Police Bill. Labour will be painted as weak on violence. The Tories will claim - wrongly - that this proves why such laws are needed (they're not as there are sufficient laws in place to deal with what happened last night). Meanwhile our freedoms are eroded further.
I have nothing but contempt for those Bristol fuckwits.
Sure, they are idiots but their violent actions are already illegal under existing law. The police Bill outlaws peaceful protest, not violent one's.
Worth remembering that we are at the 30th anniversary of the end of the Poll Tax. Sometimes protest and civil disobedience is necessary to make government's to listen.
I know. That is my precise point. The best way to protest would have been a demonstration which would be legal now but illegal under the new law.
What happened last night will not make the government listen. It will them more determined to go ahead. So we all lose.
That was exactly how the protest started, before the nutty minority went apeshit.
If it had been a legal protest with proper marshaling, no police would have been harmed. If you make protest illegal, you make it uncontrolled.
What a bollocks statement....proper marshalled legal protests included things like the student fee protests....which ended in similar violence. Same with anti-globalisation, BLM, anti-statue topplers, etc etc etc.
Certain causes attract certain types of people who are looking to cause trouble, the far left smash up the banks, Starbucks, McDonalds lot to the far right lot that try to fight everybody.
Yes, but criminal damage and assault are already illegal. Why criminalise the peaceful protesters too? One day you too may want to protest something.
That isn't what I am complaining about. I am pulling you up on your absolute nonsense that a few people in some high viz jackets marshalling would have stopped the police getting attacked.
He must have seen my post - and yes the new policy is still insane!
The policy of the EU, EMA and various EU member states on AZ is now officially outwith my comprehension. I am wondering if this is deliberate and it is actually performance art. The theatre of the absurd. It is meant to bewilder
Go back to last year and the UK not joining the EU vaccine programme was ridiculed by Remainers. Right now it looks like literally the best decision the UK has made in decades. Maybe it was just pure luck, rather than any particular insight or design, but either way it was clearly the right decision.
It was by design. The UK scheme was designed around being an investment partner with pharma for manufacturing and capacity enlargement. Our deals with AZ, Novavax, CureVac and Valneva are based on that concept and our deal with Pfizer was based on speed and paying whatever Pfizer wanted to get in early.
The EU scheme was incompatible with both of these goals and the scheme would have required us to give up our existing deals with AZ and Pfizer to the EU scheme and for AZ scheme to be downgraded to purchaser rather than partner with all of the "best reasonable efforts" clauses it came with.
Joining the EU scheme was never going to be on the cards for us, the whole government approach to the virus has been "whatever it takes" and the aim for vaccines was to be among the first to be fully vaccinated (and we're probably going to be the first major nation to achieve that). That goal and our approach is the opposite to what the EU scheme asked us to do.
The fact that our rejection of the scheme on the grounds that it would cause "costly delays" led to no reflection at all within the EU shows how much the UK was regarded as a joke state. In the words of Bob Monkhouse, they're not laughing now.
To be fair, the EU arguments did seem plausible - combine the spending power of the EU, enforce this on pharma, get the best deal and the quickest jabs, don’t get out-muscled by America or China. That’s why I think a Remaining UK govt would have fallen into line. It makes sense, prima facie
I am glad our Leaving, Brexiteering govt saw a different route, and realised the flaws in the EU’s proposal
The idea that prime minister Cameron, his winning Remain vote in his wallet, would have opted out, is nuts. He’s a pragmatic, instinctive europhile who lacks imagination
No, it never made sense which is why the government rejected it.
The Americans didn't outmuscle anyone based on market size (neither did we). They did it by spending 9 times as much money per capita on vaccine development and procurement than the EU. Our vaccine scheme had a higher price tag than the EU scheme did before they panic bought an extra 400m Pfizer doses and 200m Moderna doses for H2 delivery. One nation of 67m spent more on developing and buying vaccines than 27 nations of 447m.
That's what this boils down to, we spent billions on buying vaccines the US spent tens of billions. The reason is because every single extra month in lockdown costs us £25bn so the correct approach is to pay whatever it takes to get vaccinated ASAP.
I’m all for the right to protest and I am dismayed by a the glibness with which we throw away our liberties, however, last night revealed a big problem with most protest movements in the UK. They get hijacked by a ghastly combination of middle class hipsters, bored students, militant Marxists, sinister Antifa, ridiculous wankers, actual anarchists, and ladies who like to poo in public. Then they all take selfies and go on Instagram.
As a result they all run out of steam and end up absurd or reviled.
I had several friends who are - or were - passionately XR but left it in despair at the invasion of Marxism, identity politics and idiot rich girls from Kew who wanted to do special dances down Regent Street
I imagine protest movements in history have often been quite like this. Protest attracts eccentrics, students, rich people who have the time, BUT social media amplifies and broadcasts their wankiness, deleteriously
Do the protests in places like Thailand, Hong Kong, and Myanmar attract the same oxygen wasters? They don't seem to, or at least they don't get any publicity in the West.
A lot of those types only exist in western countries. You don't usually have middle-class protesters in poor countries, for example.
He must have seen my post - and yes the new policy is still insane!
The policy of the EU, EMA and various EU member states on AZ is now officially outwith my comprehension. I am wondering if this is deliberate and it is actually performance art. The theatre of the absurd. It is meant to bewilder
Go back to last year and the UK not joining the EU vaccine programme was ridiculed by Remainers. Right now it looks like literally the best decision the UK has made in decades. Maybe it was just pure luck, rather than any particular insight or design, but either way it was clearly the right decision.
It was by design. The UK scheme was designed around being an investment partner with pharma for manufacturing and capacity enlargement. Our deals with AZ, Novavax, CureVac and Valneva are based on that concept and our deal with Pfizer was based on speed and paying whatever Pfizer wanted to get in early.
The EU scheme was incompatible with both of these goals and the scheme would have required us to give up our existing deals with AZ and Pfizer to the EU scheme and for AZ scheme to be downgraded to purchaser rather than partner with all of the "best reasonable efforts" clauses it came with.
Joining the EU scheme was never going to be on the cards for us, the whole government approach to the virus has been "whatever it takes" and the aim for vaccines was to be among the first to be fully vaccinated (and we're probably going to be the first major nation to achieve that). That goal and our approach is the opposite to what the EU scheme asked us to do.
The fact that our rejection of the scheme on the grounds that it would cause "costly delays" led to no reflection at all within the EU shows how much the UK was regarded as a joke state. In the words of Bob Monkhouse, they're not laughing now.
To be fair, the EU arguments did seem plausible - combine the spending power of the EU, enforce this on pharma, get the best deal and the quickest jabs, don’t get out-muscled by America or China. That’s why I think a Remaining UK govt would have fallen into line. It makes sense, prima facie
I am glad our Leaving, Brexiteering govt saw a different route, and realised the flaws in the EU’s proposal
The idea that prime minister Cameron, his winning Remain vote in his wallet, would have opted out, is nuts. He’s a pragmatic, instinctive europhile who lacks imagination
The spending power of the EU only works if the EU is actually prepared to, er, spend money!
The other problem is with vaccines it is time sensitive and very limited supppy. EU usual tactics of waiting until 11.59pm before the deadline on deals is the worst approach given these conditions.
Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed...oh shit, someone else got in, well bloody agree something quick!
I’m all for the right to protest and I am dismayed by a the glibness with which we throw away our liberties, however, last night revealed a big problem with most protest movements in the UK. They get hijacked by a ghastly combination of middle class hipsters, bored students, militant Marxists, sinister Antifa, ridiculous wankers, actual anarchists, and ladies who like to poo in public. Then they all take selfies and go on Instagram.
As a result they all run out of steam and end up absurd or reviled.
I had several friends who are - or were - passionately XR but left it in despair at the invasion of Marxism, identity politics and idiot rich girls from Kew who wanted to do special dances down Regent Street
I imagine protest movements in history have often been quite like this. Protest attracts eccentrics, students, rich people who have the time, BUT social media amplifies and broadcasts their wankiness, deleteriously
Do the protests in places like Thailand, Hong Kong, and Myanmar attract the same oxygen wasters? They don't seem to, or at least they don't get any publicity in the West.
No, not at all. Take the Thai protests. I know them well. It’s mainly students but it’s also been middle class housewives, farmers, all sorts. They are serious and disciplined. And have clever messaging and there is no embarrassing narcissistic social media pantomime or at least very little
This is partly because the stakes are so much higher. Many have been shot dead over the years in Thai protests. That focuses the mind and probably deters the effete.
Stakes even higher in Myanmar.
Perhaps the plod should mow down a few XR crusties to improve the quality of future protests?
Joke!
Though radical anti-monarchists were attempting to burn pictures of the Thai King last week, something akin in the Thai psyche to graffiti on Churchill's statue.
I have a connection to Myanmar, and the protesters there vary between pro democracy students to separatist ethnic groups to narco warlords.
He must have seen my post - and yes the new policy is still insane!
The policy of the EU, EMA and various EU member states on AZ is now officially outwith my comprehension. I am wondering if this is deliberate and it is actually performance art. The theatre of the absurd. It is meant to bewilder
Go back to last year and the UK not joining the EU vaccine programme was ridiculed by Remainers. Right now it looks like literally the best decision the UK has made in decades. Maybe it was just pure luck, rather than any particular insight or design, but either way it was clearly the right decision.
It was by design. The UK scheme was designed around being an investment partner with pharma for manufacturing and capacity enlargement. Our deals with AZ, Novavax, CureVac and Valneva are based on that concept and our deal with Pfizer was based on speed and paying whatever Pfizer wanted to get in early.
The EU scheme was incompatible with both of these goals and the scheme would have required us to give up our existing deals with AZ and Pfizer to the EU scheme and for AZ scheme to be downgraded to purchaser rather than partner with all of the "best reasonable efforts" clauses it came with.
Joining the EU scheme was never going to be on the cards for us, the whole government approach to the virus has been "whatever it takes" and the aim for vaccines was to be among the first to be fully vaccinated (and we're probably going to be the first major nation to achieve that). That goal and our approach is the opposite to what the EU scheme asked us to do.
The fact that our rejection of the scheme on the grounds that it would cause "costly delays" led to no reflection at all within the EU shows how much the UK was regarded as a joke state. In the words of Bob Monkhouse, they're not laughing now.
To be fair, the EU arguments did seem plausible - combine the spending power of the EU, enforce this on pharma, get the best deal and the quickest jabs, don’t get out-muscled by America or China. That’s why I think a Remaining UK govt would have fallen into line. It makes sense, prima facie
I am glad our Leaving, Brexiteering govt saw a different route, and realised the flaws in the EU’s proposal
The idea that prime minister Cameron, his winning Remain vote in his wallet, would have opted out, is nuts. He’s a pragmatic, instinctive europhile who lacks imagination
No, it never made sense which is why the government rejected it.
The Americans didn't outmuscle anyone based on market size (neither did we). They did it by spending 9 times as much money per capita on vaccine development and procurement than the EU. Our vaccine scheme had a higher price tag than the EU scheme did before they panic bought an extra 400m Pfizer doses and 200m Moderna doses for H2 delivery. One nation of 67m spent more on developing and buying vaccines than 27 nations of 447m.
That's what this boils down to, we spent billions on buying vaccines the US spent tens of billions. The reason is because every single extra month in lockdown costs us £25bn so the correct approach is to pay whatever it takes to get vaccinated ASAP.
And build in a future supply chain. In six months (probably sooner) our domestic supply will far outstrip our needs. We will be a mass exporter of vaccines. Something for the EU to keep sight of you would think? If they currently were capable of thinking more than a few days or weeks into the future.
He must have seen my post - and yes the new policy is still insane!
The policy of the EU, EMA and various EU member states on AZ is now officially outwith my comprehension. I am wondering if this is deliberate and it is actually performance art. The theatre of the absurd. It is meant to bewilder
Go back to last year and the UK not joining the EU vaccine programme was ridiculed by Remainers. Right now it looks like literally the best decision the UK has made in decades. Maybe it was just pure luck, rather than any particular insight or design, but either way it was clearly the right decision.
It was by design. The UK scheme was designed around being an investment partner with pharma for manufacturing and capacity enlargement. Our deals with AZ, Novavax, CureVac and Valneva are based on that concept and our deal with Pfizer was based on speed and paying whatever Pfizer wanted to get in early.
The EU scheme was incompatible with both of these goals and the scheme would have required us to give up our existing deals with AZ and Pfizer to the EU scheme and for AZ scheme to be downgraded to purchaser rather than partner with all of the "best reasonable efforts" clauses it came with.
Joining the EU scheme was never going to be on the cards for us, the whole government approach to the virus has been "whatever it takes" and the aim for vaccines was to be among the first to be fully vaccinated (and we're probably going to be the first major nation to achieve that). That goal and our approach is the opposite to what the EU scheme asked us to do.
The fact that our rejection of the scheme on the grounds that it would cause "costly delays" led to no reflection at all within the EU shows how much the UK was regarded as a joke state. In the words of Bob Monkhouse, they're not laughing now.
And it is surely much more of a problem for the SNP than any of the Sturgeon business. For sure, it is regularly pointed out on here that we could have done our own thing if we were still in the EU. Perhaps George Osborne would have had the sense to do just that.
But the SNP can hardly use that as a line of defence. If they'd have wanted to opt out of that part of the EU, what else would they want to opt out of? And given Scotland's size, it doesn't seem likely that they wouldn't have joined in.
It is disturbing that Keir has not led in his honeymoon year.
Lawyers, intellectuals, academics, journos all love Keir. But, he does not seem to have the folksy charm to connect with the voters --- as Bill Clinton or Tony Blair did.
He comes across as cold, stilted, wooden. He is a male Theresa.
So, the header is right. Keir is a loser. He is probably a great guy, certainly compared to Boris. But, he is a loser and he is heading for defeat against Boris. Get rid.
Labour have plenty better options.
Really? Name three.
Better options .... Rayner or Nandy would be much trickier for Boris, I suspect.
Rayner, especially. would surely bring out the worst in the bumbling Old Etonian.
Any attractive woman would be a problem for him. I doubt he’d be able to focus on the job.
I suspect his charm would be lost on Ms Rayner.
I would love to see her in a top 4 job, like Shadow Home Sec. She would give Priti a very hard time, standing up for freedom.
She'd have to deal with idiots like Nadia Whittome first.
The morons rioting in Bristol last night have completely undermined any principled opposition to the Police Bill. Labour will be painted as weak on violence. The Tories will claim - wrongly - that this proves why such laws are needed (they're not as there are sufficient laws in place to deal with what happened last night). Meanwhile our freedoms are eroded further.
I have nothing but contempt for those Bristol fuckwits.
Sure, they are idiots but their violent actions are already illegal under existing law. The police Bill outlaws peaceful protest, not violent one's.
Worth remembering that we are at the 30th anniversary of the end of the Poll Tax. Sometimes protest and civil disobedience is necessary to make government's to listen.
I know. That is my precise point. The best way to protest would have been a demonstration which would be legal now but illegal under the new law.
What happened last night will not make the government listen. It will them more determined to go ahead. So we all lose.
That was exactly how the protest started, before the nutty minority went apeshit.
If it had been a legal protest with proper marshaling, no police would have been harmed. If you make protest illegal, you make it uncontrolled.
Oh dear, you can just feel that new golden age of iconoclasm slipping out of reach, can't you? Oh well, never mind.
It is disturbing that Keir has not led in his honeymoon year.
Lawyers, intellectuals, academics, journos all love Keir. But, he does not seem to have the folksy charm to connect with the voters --- as Bill Clinton or Tony Blair did.
He comes across as cold, stilted, wooden. He is a male Theresa.
So, the header is right. Keir is a loser. He is probably a great guy, certainly compared to Boris. But, he is a loser and he is heading for defeat against Boris. Get rid.
Labour have plenty better options.
Really? Name three.
Better options .... Rayner or Nandy would be much trickier for Boris, I suspect.
Rayner, especially. would surely bring out the worst in the bumbling Old Etonian.
Any attractive woman would be a problem for him. I doubt he’d be able to focus on the job.
I suspect his charm would be lost on Ms Rayner.
I would love to see her in a top 4 job, like Shadow Home Sec. She would give Priti a very hard time, standing up for freedom.
She'd have to deal with idiots like Nadia Whittome first.
The morons rioting in Bristol last night have completely undermined any principled opposition to the Police Bill. Labour will be painted as weak on violence. The Tories will claim - wrongly - that this proves why such laws are needed (they're not as there are sufficient laws in place to deal with what happened last night). Meanwhile our freedoms are eroded further.
I have nothing but contempt for those Bristol fuckwits.
Sure, they are idiots but their violent actions are already illegal under existing law. The police Bill outlaws peaceful protest, not violent one's.
Worth remembering that we are at the 30th anniversary of the end of the Poll Tax. Sometimes protest and civil disobedience is necessary to make government's to listen.
I’m all for the right to protest and I am dismayed by a the glibness with which we throw away our liberties, however, last night revealed a big problem with most protest movements in the UK. They get hijacked by a ghastly combination of middle class hipsters, bored students, militant Marxists, sinister Antifa, ridiculous wankers, actual anarchists, and ladies who like to poo in public. Then they all take selfies and go on Instagram.
As a result they all run out of steam and end up absurd or reviled.
I had several friends who are - or were - passionately XR but left it in despair at the invasion of Marxism, identity politics and idiot rich girls from Kew who wanted to do special dances down Regent Street
I imagine protest movements in history have often been quite like this. Protest attracts eccentrics, students, rich people who have the time, BUT social media amplifies and broadcasts their wankiness, deleteriously
You need people willing to be a bit crazy to take on and change a system which may well need changing, and that comes with some risks. But the hijacking obsessives and performative perennial protestors really are a fantastic recruiter for the Conservatives electorally, which must be very frustrating for people supporting that cause.
I'd have thought one of the best ways to enact radical change is for people to not see it as radical change. That doesn't require being dishonest, it can be as simple as not also peppering your plans with every cliched radical message possible. Be targeted and slick. So even if it is an acknowledged radical proposal, it doesn't spook people like doommongering revolutionary rhetoric from the riotous element.
More than anything else this new breed of Corbynite MPs and the like are just plain ineffective at pushing for what they want, when despite his critics if Keir proposed the same thing he'd get more of an airing. Indeed, they're more effective at causing a counter-reaction.
The Tories are not masters of politics, but you don't have to make it easy for them even so.
if politics is about having power, exercising it and keeping hold of it, then at the moment, if Pip Moss's excellent article is anything like true, 'masters of politics' is exactly what the Tories are; with no rival even on the distant horizon, and the greatest threat, from Scotland, busy neutralising itself.
It is disturbing that Keir has not led in his honeymoon year.
Lawyers, intellectuals, academics, journos all love Keir. But, he does not seem to have the folksy charm to connect with the voters --- as Bill Clinton or Tony Blair did.
He comes across as cold, stilted, wooden. He is a male Theresa.
So, the header is right. Keir is a loser. He is probably a great guy, certainly compared to Boris. But, he is a loser and he is heading for defeat against Boris. Get rid.
Labour have plenty better options.
Really? Name three.
Better options .... Rayner or Nandy would be much trickier for Boris, I suspect.
Rayner, especially. would surely bring out the worst in the bumbling Old Etonian.
Any attractive woman would be a problem for him. I doubt he’d be able to focus on the job.
I suspect his charm would be lost on Ms Rayner.
I would love to see her in a top 4 job, like Shadow Home Sec. She would give Priti a very hard time, standing up for freedom.
She'd have to deal with idiots like Nadia Whittome first.
The morons rioting in Bristol last night have completely undermined any principled opposition to the Police Bill. Labour will be painted as weak on violence. The Tories will claim - wrongly - that this proves why such laws are needed (they're not as there are sufficient laws in place to deal with what happened last night). Meanwhile our freedoms are eroded further.
I have nothing but contempt for those Bristol fuckwits.
Sure, they are idiots but their violent actions are already illegal under existing law. The police Bill outlaws peaceful protest, not violent one's.
Worth remembering that we are at the 30th anniversary of the end of the Poll Tax. Sometimes protest and civil disobedience is necessary to make government's to listen.
I know. That is my precise point. The best way to protest would have been a demonstration which would be legal now but illegal under the new law.
What happened last night will not make the government listen. It will them more determined to go ahead. So we all lose.
That was exactly how the protest started, before the nutty minority went apeshit.
If it had been a legal protest with proper marshaling, no police would have been harmed. If you make protest illegal, you make it uncontrolled.
What a bollocks statement....proper marshalled legal protests included things like the student fee protests....which ended in similar violence. Same with anti-globalisation, BLM, anti-statue topplers, etc etc etc.
Certain causes attract certain types of people who are looking to cause trouble, the far left smash up the banks, Starbucks, McDonalds lot to the far right lot that try to fight everybody.
Yes, but criminal damage and assault are already illegal. Why criminalise the peaceful protesters too? One day you too may want to protest something.
That isn't what I am complaining about. I am pulling you up on your absolute nonsense that a few people in some high viz jackets marshalling would have stopped the police getting attacked.
It is disturbing that Keir has not led in his honeymoon year.
Lawyers, intellectuals, academics, journos all love Keir. But, he does not seem to have the folksy charm to connect with the voters --- as Bill Clinton or Tony Blair did.
He comes across as cold, stilted, wooden. He is a male Theresa.
So, the header is right. Keir is a loser. He is probably a great guy, certainly compared to Boris. But, he is a loser and he is heading for defeat against Boris. Get rid.
Labour have plenty better options.
Really? Name three.
Better options .... Rayner or Nandy would be much trickier for Boris, I suspect.
Rayner, especially. would surely bring out the worst in the bumbling Old Etonian.
Any attractive woman would be a problem for him. I doubt he’d be able to focus on the job.
I suspect his charm would be lost on Ms Rayner.
I would love to see her in a top 4 job, like Shadow Home Sec. She would give Priti a very hard time, standing up for freedom.
She'd have to deal with idiots like Nadia Whittome first.
The morons rioting in Bristol last night have completely undermined any principled opposition to the Police Bill. Labour will be painted as weak on violence. The Tories will claim - wrongly - that this proves why such laws are needed (they're not as there are sufficient laws in place to deal with what happened last night). Meanwhile our freedoms are eroded further.
I have nothing but contempt for those Bristol fuckwits.
Sure, they are idiots but their violent actions are already illegal under existing law. The police Bill outlaws peaceful protest, not violent one's.
Worth remembering that we are at the 30th anniversary of the end of the Poll Tax. Sometimes protest and civil disobedience is necessary to make government's to listen.
I know. That is my precise point. The best way to protest would have been a demonstration which would be legal now but illegal under the new law.
What happened last night will not make the government listen. It will them more determined to go ahead. So we all lose.
That was exactly how the protest started, before the nutty minority went apeshit.
If it had been a legal protest with proper marshaling, no police would have been harmed. If you make protest illegal, you make it uncontrolled.
What a bollocks statement....proper marshalled legal protests included things like the student fee protests....which ended in similar violence. Same with anti-globalisation, BLM, anti-statue topplers, etc etc etc.
Certain causes attract certain types of people who are looking to cause trouble, the far left smash up the banks, Starbucks, McDonalds lot to the far right lot that try to fight everybody.
Yes, but criminal damage and assault are already illegal. Why criminalise the peaceful protesters too? One day you too may want to protest something.
That isn't what I am complaining about. I am pulling you up on your absolute nonsense that a few people in some high viz jackets marshalling would have stopped the police getting attacked.
It is disturbing that Keir has not led in his honeymoon year.
Lawyers, intellectuals, academics, journos all love Keir. But, he does not seem to have the folksy charm to connect with the voters --- as Bill Clinton or Tony Blair did.
He comes across as cold, stilted, wooden. He is a male Theresa.
So, the header is right. Keir is a loser. He is probably a great guy, certainly compared to Boris. But, he is a loser and he is heading for defeat against Boris. Get rid.
Labour have plenty better options.
Really? Name three.
Better options .... Rayner or Nandy would be much trickier for Boris, I suspect.
Rayner, especially. would surely bring out the worst in the bumbling Old Etonian.
Any attractive woman would be a problem for him. I doubt he’d be able to focus on the job.
I suspect his charm would be lost on Ms Rayner.
I would love to see her in a top 4 job, like Shadow Home Sec. She would give Priti a very hard time, standing up for freedom.
She'd have to deal with idiots like Nadia Whittome first.
The morons rioting in Bristol last night have completely undermined any principled opposition to the Police Bill. Labour will be painted as weak on violence. The Tories will claim - wrongly - that this proves why such laws are needed (they're not as there are sufficient laws in place to deal with what happened last night). Meanwhile our freedoms are eroded further.
I have nothing but contempt for those Bristol fuckwits.
Sure, they are idiots but their violent actions are already illegal under existing law. The police Bill outlaws peaceful protest, not violent one's.
Worth remembering that we are at the 30th anniversary of the end of the Poll Tax. Sometimes protest and civil disobedience is necessary to make government's to listen.
I’m all for the right to protest and I am dismayed by a the glibness with which we throw away our liberties, however, last night revealed a big problem with most protest movements in the UK. They get hijacked by a ghastly combination of middle class hipsters, bored students, militant Marxists, sinister Antifa, ridiculous wankers, actual anarchists, and ladies who like to poo in public. Then they all take selfies and go on Instagram.
As a result they all run out of steam and end up absurd or reviled.
I had several friends who are - or were - passionately XR but left it in despair at the invasion of Marxism, identity politics and idiot rich girls from Kew who wanted to do special dances down Regent Street
I imagine protest movements in history have often been quite like this. Protest attracts eccentrics, students, rich people who have the time, BUT social media amplifies and broadcasts their wankiness, deleteriously
You need people willing to be a bit crazy to take on and change a system which may well need changing, and that comes with some risks. But the hijacking obsessives and performative perennial protestors really are a fantastic recruiter for the Conservatives electorally, which must be very frustrating for people supporting that cause.
I'd have thought one of the best ways to enact radical change is for people to not see it as radical change. That doesn't require being dishonest, it can be as simple as not also peppering your plans with every cliched radical message possible. Be targeted and slick. So even if it is an acknowledged radical proposal, it doesn't spook people like doommongering revolutionary rhetoric from the riotous element.
More than anything else this new breed of Corbynite MPs and the like are just plain ineffective at pushing for what they want, when despite his critics if Keir proposed the same thing he'd get more of an airing. Indeed, they're more effective at causing a counter-reaction.
The Tories are not masters of politics, but you don't have to make it easy for them even so.
You see it every time. By about the third high profile protest, in any salient cause, out come the Palestinian flags. Socialist worker placards. BLM chants. Antifa in balaclavas. Transgender activists with baseball bats.
It makes the message looks depressingly diffuse and everyone else shrugs and says Them. It must, as you say, be exasperating for people who care about one particular cause and don’t want it linked with Palestine or Trans rights, however worthy those other causes might be.
He must have seen my post - and yes the new policy is still insane!
The policy of the EU, EMA and various EU member states on AZ is now officially outwith my comprehension. I am wondering if this is deliberate and it is actually performance art. The theatre of the absurd. It is meant to bewilder
Go back to last year and the UK not joining the EU vaccine programme was ridiculed by Remainers. Right now it looks like literally the best decision the UK has made in decades. Maybe it was just pure luck, rather than any particular insight or design, but either way it was clearly the right decision.
It was by design. The UK scheme was designed around being an investment partner with pharma for manufacturing and capacity enlargement. Our deals with AZ, Novavax, CureVac and Valneva are based on that concept and our deal with Pfizer was based on speed and paying whatever Pfizer wanted to get in early.
The EU scheme was incompatible with both of these goals and the scheme would have required us to give up our existing deals with AZ and Pfizer to the EU scheme and for AZ scheme to be downgraded to purchaser rather than partner with all of the "best reasonable efforts" clauses it came with.
Joining the EU scheme was never going to be on the cards for us, the whole government approach to the virus has been "whatever it takes" and the aim for vaccines was to be among the first to be fully vaccinated (and we're probably going to be the first major nation to achieve that). That goal and our approach is the opposite to what the EU scheme asked us to do.
The fact that our rejection of the scheme on the grounds that it would cause "costly delays" led to no reflection at all within the EU shows how much the UK was regarded as a joke state. In the words of Bob Monkhouse, they're not laughing now.
To be fair, the EU arguments did seem plausible - combine the spending power of the EU, enforce this on pharma, get the best deal and the quickest jabs, don’t get out-muscled by America or China. That’s why I think a Remaining UK govt would have fallen into line. It makes sense, prima facie
I am glad our Leaving, Brexiteering govt saw a different route, and realised the flaws in the EU’s proposal
The idea that prime minister Cameron, his winning Remain vote in his wallet, would have opted out, is nuts. He’s a pragmatic, instinctive europhile who lacks imagination
No, it never made sense which is why the government rejected it.
The Americans didn't outmuscle anyone based on market size (neither did we). They did it by spending 9 times as much money per capita on vaccine development and procurement than the EU. Our vaccine scheme had a higher price tag than the EU scheme did before they panic bought an extra 400m Pfizer doses and 200m Moderna doses for H2 delivery. One nation of 67m spent more on developing and buying vaccines than 27 nations of 447m.
That's what this boils down to, we spent billions on buying vaccines the US spent tens of billions. The reason is because every single extra month in lockdown costs us £25bn so the correct approach is to pay whatever it takes to get vaccinated ASAP.
And build in a future supply chain. In six months (probably sooner) our domestic supply will far outstrip our needs. We will be a mass exporter of vaccines. Something for the EU to keep sight of you would think? If they currently were capable of thinking more than a few days or weeks into the future.
Yes, the UK will go from being a vaccines nobody to being a vaccine superpower in a little under 2 years. By the middle of 2022 this county will have manufacturing capacity of over 2bn various vaccines. Before the virus we made about 20m doses of Japanese encephalitis vaccine in Scotland. Aiui the current supply agreements are just a starting point, the government is continuing to court international and domestic pharma and biotech companies for further investment in development and manufacturing of vaccines and therapeutics.
It is disturbing that Keir has not led in his honeymoon year.
Lawyers, intellectuals, academics, journos all love Keir. But, he does not seem to have the folksy charm to connect with the voters --- as Bill Clinton or Tony Blair did.
He comes across as cold, stilted, wooden. He is a male Theresa.
So, the header is right. Keir is a loser. He is probably a great guy, certainly compared to Boris. But, he is a loser and he is heading for defeat against Boris. Get rid.
Labour have plenty better options.
Really? Name three.
Better options .... Rayner or Nandy would be much trickier for Boris, I suspect.
Rayner, especially. would surely bring out the worst in the bumbling Old Etonian.
Any attractive woman would be a problem for him. I doubt he’d be able to focus on the job.
I suspect his charm would be lost on Ms Rayner.
I would love to see her in a top 4 job, like Shadow Home Sec. She would give Priti a very hard time, standing up for freedom.
She'd have to deal with idiots like Nadia Whittome first.
The morons rioting in Bristol last night have completely undermined any principled opposition to the Police Bill. Labour will be painted as weak on violence. The Tories will claim - wrongly - that this proves why such laws are needed (they're not as there are sufficient laws in place to deal with what happened last night). Meanwhile our freedoms are eroded further.
I have nothing but contempt for those Bristol fuckwits.
Sure, they are idiots but their violent actions are already illegal under existing law. The police Bill outlaws peaceful protest, not violent one's.
Worth remembering that we are at the 30th anniversary of the end of the Poll Tax. Sometimes protest and civil disobedience is necessary to make government's to listen.
I know. That is my precise point. The best way to protest would have been a demonstration which would be legal now but illegal under the new law.
What happened last night will not make the government listen. It will them more determined to go ahead. So we all lose.
That was exactly how the protest started, before the nutty minority went apeshit.
If it had been a legal protest with proper marshaling, no police would have been harmed. If you make protest illegal, you make it uncontrolled.
What a bollocks statement....proper marshalled legal protests included things like the student fee protests....which ended in similar violence. Same with anti-globalisation, BLM, anti-statue topplers, etc etc etc.
Certain causes attract certain types of people who are looking to cause trouble, the far left smash up the banks, Starbucks, McDonalds lot to the far right lot that try to fight everybody.
Yes, but criminal damage and assault are already illegal. Why criminalise the peaceful protesters too? One day you too may want to protest something.
That isn't what I am complaining about. I am pulling you up on your absolute nonsense that a few people in some high viz jackets marshalling would have stopped the police getting attacked.
Attacking police is already illegal.
You seem unable to read.
Tories seem unable to understand the importance of protest and of free speech.
There is a dark underside to the British love of authoritarianism.
Like people been driven mad by Brexit, Trump Derangement Syndrome....Jon Oliver last night on his comedy show tied Trump calling coronavirus the China virus to the mass shooting of Asians Spa workers...
He must have seen my post - and yes the new policy is still insane!
The policy of the EU, EMA and various EU member states on AZ is now officially outwith my comprehension. I am wondering if this is deliberate and it is actually performance art. The theatre of the absurd. It is meant to bewilder
Go back to last year and the UK not joining the EU vaccine programme was ridiculed by Remainers. Right now it looks like literally the best decision the UK has made in decades. Maybe it was just pure luck, rather than any particular insight or design, but either way it was clearly the right decision.
It was by design. The UK scheme was designed around being an investment partner with pharma for manufacturing and capacity enlargement. Our deals with AZ, Novavax, CureVac and Valneva are based on that concept and our deal with Pfizer was based on speed and paying whatever Pfizer wanted to get in early.
The EU scheme was incompatible with both of these goals and the scheme would have required us to give up our existing deals with AZ and Pfizer to the EU scheme and for AZ scheme to be downgraded to purchaser rather than partner with all of the "best reasonable efforts" clauses it came with.
Joining the EU scheme was never going to be on the cards for us, the whole government approach to the virus has been "whatever it takes" and the aim for vaccines was to be among the first to be fully vaccinated (and we're probably going to be the first major nation to achieve that). That goal and our approach is the opposite to what the EU scheme asked us to do.
The fact that our rejection of the scheme on the grounds that it would cause "costly delays" led to no reflection at all within the EU shows how much the UK was regarded as a joke state. In the words of Bob Monkhouse, they're not laughing now.
To be fair, the EU arguments did seem plausible - combine the spending power of the EU, enforce this on pharma, get the best deal and the quickest jabs, don’t get out-muscled by America or China. That’s why I think a Remaining UK govt would have fallen into line. It makes sense, prima facie
I am glad our Leaving, Brexiteering govt saw a different route, and realised the flaws in the EU’s proposal
The idea that prime minister Cameron, his winning Remain vote in his wallet, would have opted out, is nuts. He’s a pragmatic, instinctive europhile who lacks imagination
No, it never made sense which is why the government rejected it.
The Americans didn't outmuscle anyone based on market size (neither did we). They did it by spending 9 times as much money per capita on vaccine development and procurement than the EU. Our vaccine scheme had a higher price tag than the EU scheme did before they panic bought an extra 400m Pfizer doses and 200m Moderna doses for H2 delivery. One nation of 67m spent more on developing and buying vaccines than 27 nations of 447m.
That's what this boils down to, we spent billions on buying vaccines the US spent tens of billions. The reason is because every single extra month in lockdown costs us £25bn so the correct approach is to pay whatever it takes to get vaccinated ASAP.
And build in a future supply chain. In six months (probably sooner) our domestic supply will far outstrip our needs. We will be a mass exporter of vaccines. Something for the EU to keep sight of you would think? If they currently were capable of thinking more than a few days or weeks into the future.
Do the EU want to be first in line for our exports when they're available before long?
It is disturbing that Keir has not led in his honeymoon year.
Lawyers, intellectuals, academics, journos all love Keir. But, he does not seem to have the folksy charm to connect with the voters --- as Bill Clinton or Tony Blair did.
He comes across as cold, stilted, wooden. He is a male Theresa.
So, the header is right. Keir is a loser. He is probably a great guy, certainly compared to Boris. But, he is a loser and he is heading for defeat against Boris. Get rid.
Labour have plenty better options.
Really? Name three.
Better options .... Rayner or Nandy would be much trickier for Boris, I suspect.
Rayner, especially. would surely bring out the worst in the bumbling Old Etonian.
Any attractive woman would be a problem for him. I doubt he’d be able to focus on the job.
I suspect his charm would be lost on Ms Rayner.
I would love to see her in a top 4 job, like Shadow Home Sec. She would give Priti a very hard time, standing up for freedom.
She'd have to deal with idiots like Nadia Whittome first.
The morons rioting in Bristol last night have completely undermined any principled opposition to the Police Bill. Labour will be painted as weak on violence. The Tories will claim - wrongly - that this proves why such laws are needed (they're not as there are sufficient laws in place to deal with what happened last night). Meanwhile our freedoms are eroded further.
I have nothing but contempt for those Bristol fuckwits.
Sure, they are idiots but their violent actions are already illegal under existing law. The police Bill outlaws peaceful protest, not violent one's.
Worth remembering that we are at the 30th anniversary of the end of the Poll Tax. Sometimes protest and civil disobedience is necessary to make government's to listen.
I’m all for the right to protest and I am dismayed by a the glibness with which we throw away our liberties, however, last night revealed a big problem with most protest movements in the UK. They get hijacked by a ghastly combination of middle class hipsters, bored students, militant Marxists, sinister Antifa, ridiculous wankers, actual anarchists, and ladies who like to poo in public. Then they all take selfies and go on Instagram.
As a result they all run out of steam and end up absurd or reviled.
I had several friends who are - or were - passionately XR but left it in despair at the invasion of Marxism, identity politics and idiot rich girls from Kew who wanted to do special dances down Regent Street
I imagine protest movements in history have often been quite like this. Protest attracts eccentrics, students, rich people who have the time, BUT social media amplifies and broadcasts their wankiness, deleteriously
You need people willing to be a bit crazy to take on and change a system which may well need changing, and that comes with some risks. But the hijacking obsessives and performative perennial protestors really are a fantastic recruiter for the Conservatives electorally, which must be very frustrating for people supporting that cause.
I'd have thought one of the best ways to enact radical change is for people to not see it as radical change. That doesn't require being dishonest, it can be as simple as not also peppering your plans with every cliched radical message possible. Be targeted and slick. So even if it is an acknowledged radical proposal, it doesn't spook people like doommongering revolutionary rhetoric from the riotous element.
More than anything else this new breed of Corbynite MPs and the like are just plain ineffective at pushing for what they want, when despite his critics if Keir proposed the same thing he'd get more of an airing. Indeed, they're more effective at causing a counter-reaction.
The Tories are not masters of politics, but you don't have to make it easy for them even so.
if politics is about having power, exercising it and keeping hold of it, then at the moment, if Pip Moss's excellent article is anything like true, 'masters of politics' is exactly what the Tories are; with no rival even on the distant horizon, and the greatest threat, from Scotland, busy neutralising itself.
I think the idea of Scotland being neutralised as an issue may be a bit complacent, but whether the Tories are presently mastering things or not, the principal point is opponents don't have to help them become masters, but many do nonetheless.
It is disturbing that Keir has not led in his honeymoon year.
Lawyers, intellectuals, academics, journos all love Keir. But, he does not seem to have the folksy charm to connect with the voters --- as Bill Clinton or Tony Blair did.
He comes across as cold, stilted, wooden. He is a male Theresa.
So, the header is right. Keir is a loser. He is probably a great guy, certainly compared to Boris. But, he is a loser and he is heading for defeat against Boris. Get rid.
Labour have plenty better options.
Really? Name three.
Better options .... Rayner or Nandy would be much trickier for Boris, I suspect.
Rayner, especially. would surely bring out the worst in the bumbling Old Etonian.
Any attractive woman would be a problem for him. I doubt he’d be able to focus on the job.
I suspect his charm would be lost on Ms Rayner.
I would love to see her in a top 4 job, like Shadow Home Sec. She would give Priti a very hard time, standing up for freedom.
She'd have to deal with idiots like Nadia Whittome first.
The morons rioting in Bristol last night have completely undermined any principled opposition to the Police Bill. Labour will be painted as weak on violence. The Tories will claim - wrongly - that this proves why such laws are needed (they're not as there are sufficient laws in place to deal with what happened last night). Meanwhile our freedoms are eroded further.
I have nothing but contempt for those Bristol fuckwits.
Sure, they are idiots but their violent actions are already illegal under existing law. The police Bill outlaws peaceful protest, not violent one's.
Worth remembering that we are at the 30th anniversary of the end of the Poll Tax. Sometimes protest and civil disobedience is necessary to make government's to listen.
I know. That is my precise point. The best way to protest would have been a demonstration which would be legal now but illegal under the new law.
What happened last night will not make the government listen. It will them more determined to go ahead. So we all lose.
That was exactly how the protest started, before the nutty minority went apeshit.
If it had been a legal protest with proper marshaling, no police would have been harmed. If you make protest illegal, you make it uncontrolled.
What a bollocks statement....proper marshalled legal protests included things like the student fee protests....which ended in similar violence. Same with anti-globalisation, BLM, anti-statue topplers, etc etc etc.
Certain causes attract certain types of people who are looking to cause trouble, the far left smash up the banks, Starbucks, McDonalds lot to the far right lot that try to fight everybody.
Yes, but criminal damage and assault are already illegal. Why criminalise the peaceful protesters too? One day you too may want to protest something.
That isn't what I am complaining about. I am pulling you up on your absolute nonsense that a few people in some high viz jackets marshalling would have stopped the police getting attacked.
Attacking police is already illegal.
You seem unable to read.
Tories seem unable to understand the importance of protest and of free speech.
There is a dark underside to the British love of authoritarianism.
Not a Tory...not doing well are you.
You seem to be struggling to understand me not having any issue with protesting, just your naive luvvy comment about some marshalls yesterday and there just wouldn't have been any problems. These protests don't attract just the middled aged middle class.folk who went on the Remainer march.
No amount of sensitive policing and clipboard wavers would have stopped violence at the anti-statue topplers either.
I’m all for the right to protest and I am dismayed by a the glibness with which we throw away our liberties, however, last night revealed a big problem with most protest movements in the UK. They get hijacked by a ghastly combination of middle class hipsters, bored students, militant Marxists, sinister Antifa, ridiculous wankers, actual anarchists, and ladies who like to poo in public. Then they all take selfies and go on Instagram.
As a result they all run out of steam and end up absurd or reviled.
I had several friends who are - or were - passionately XR but left it in despair at the invasion of Marxism, identity politics and idiot rich girls from Kew who wanted to do special dances down Regent Street
I imagine protest movements in history have often been quite like this. Protest attracts eccentrics, students, rich people who have the time, BUT social media amplifies and broadcasts their wankiness, deleteriously
Do the protests in places like Thailand, Hong Kong, and Myanmar attract the same oxygen wasters? They don't seem to, or at least they don't get any publicity in the West.
A lot of those types only exist in western countries. You don't usually have middle-class protesters in poor countries, for example.
Not true of Hong Kong, Thailand or Myanmar. Indeed some of the most violent protests in Yangon were in a working class industrial district.
He must have seen my post - and yes the new policy is still insane!
The policy of the EU, EMA and various EU member states on AZ is now officially outwith my comprehension. I am wondering if this is deliberate and it is actually performance art. The theatre of the absurd. It is meant to bewilder
Go back to last year and the UK not joining the EU vaccine programme was ridiculed by Remainers. Right now it looks like literally the best decision the UK has made in decades. Maybe it was just pure luck, rather than any particular insight or design, but either way it was clearly the right decision.
It was by design. The UK scheme was designed around being an investment partner with pharma for manufacturing and capacity enlargement. Our deals with AZ, Novavax, CureVac and Valneva are based on that concept and our deal with Pfizer was based on speed and paying whatever Pfizer wanted to get in early.
The EU scheme was incompatible with both of these goals and the scheme would have required us to give up our existing deals with AZ and Pfizer to the EU scheme and for AZ scheme to be downgraded to purchaser rather than partner with all of the "best reasonable efforts" clauses it came with.
Joining the EU scheme was never going to be on the cards for us, the whole government approach to the virus has been "whatever it takes" and the aim for vaccines was to be among the first to be fully vaccinated (and we're probably going to be the first major nation to achieve that). That goal and our approach is the opposite to what the EU scheme asked us to do.
The fact that our rejection of the scheme on the grounds that it would cause "costly delays" led to no reflection at all within the EU shows how much the UK was regarded as a joke state. In the words of Bob Monkhouse, they're not laughing now.
To be fair, the EU arguments did seem plausible - combine the spending power of the EU, enforce this on pharma, get the best deal and the quickest jabs, don’t get out-muscled by America or China. That’s why I think a Remaining UK govt would have fallen into line. It makes sense, prima facie
I am glad our Leaving, Brexiteering govt saw a different route, and realised the flaws in the EU’s proposal
The idea that prime minister Cameron, his winning Remain vote in his wallet, would have opted out, is nuts. He’s a pragmatic, instinctive europhile who lacks imagination
No, it never made sense which is why the government rejected it.
The Americans didn't outmuscle anyone based on market size (neither did we). They did it by spending 9 times as much money per capita on vaccine development and procurement than the EU. Our vaccine scheme had a higher price tag than the EU scheme did before they panic bought an extra 400m Pfizer doses and 200m Moderna doses for H2 delivery. One nation of 67m spent more on developing and buying vaccines than 27 nations of 447m.
That's what this boils down to, we spent billions on buying vaccines the US spent tens of billions. The reason is because every single extra month in lockdown costs us £25bn so the correct approach is to pay whatever it takes to get vaccinated ASAP.
And build in a future supply chain. In six months (probably sooner) our domestic supply will far outstrip our needs. We will be a mass exporter of vaccines. Something for the EU to keep sight of you would think? If they currently were capable of thinking more than a few days or weeks into the future.
Yes, the UK will go from being a vaccines nobody to being a vaccine superpower in a little under 2 years. By the middle of 2022 this county will have manufacturing capacity of over 2bn various vaccines. Before the virus we made about 20m doses of Japanese encephalitis vaccine in Scotland. Aiui the current supply agreements are just a starting point, the government is continuing to court international and domestic pharma and biotech companies for further investment in development and manufacturing of vaccines and therapeutics.
Are we taking the precaution of actually building any sites in England though?
Wouldn't want to make the Spanish mistake of placing all your powerhouse industries in places where separatism becomes a sound economic choice...
If we're being critical of the EU talking of EU vaccines being exported when it is companies with manufacturing based in the EU, shouldn't we also be more precise when talking about the UK creating and exporting vaccines as companies with manufacturing based in the UK?
It is disturbing that Keir has not led in his honeymoon year.
Lawyers, intellectuals, academics, journos all love Keir. But, he does not seem to have the folksy charm to connect with the voters --- as Bill Clinton or Tony Blair did.
He comes across as cold, stilted, wooden. He is a male Theresa.
So, the header is right. Keir is a loser. He is probably a great guy, certainly compared to Boris. But, he is a loser and he is heading for defeat against Boris. Get rid.
Labour have plenty better options.
Really? Name three.
Better options .... Rayner or Nandy would be much trickier for Boris, I suspect.
Rayner, especially. would surely bring out the worst in the bumbling Old Etonian.
Any attractive woman would be a problem for him. I doubt he’d be able to focus on the job.
I suspect his charm would be lost on Ms Rayner.
I would love to see her in a top 4 job, like Shadow Home Sec. She would give Priti a very hard time, standing up for freedom.
She'd have to deal with idiots like Nadia Whittome first.
The morons rioting in Bristol last night have completely undermined any principled opposition to the Police Bill. Labour will be painted as weak on violence. The Tories will claim - wrongly - that this proves why such laws are needed (they're not as there are sufficient laws in place to deal with what happened last night). Meanwhile our freedoms are eroded further.
I have nothing but contempt for those Bristol fuckwits.
Sure, they are idiots but their violent actions are already illegal under existing law. The police Bill outlaws peaceful protest, not violent one's.
Worth remembering that we are at the 30th anniversary of the end of the Poll Tax. Sometimes protest and civil disobedience is necessary to make government's to listen.
I know. That is my precise point. The best way to protest would have been a demonstration which would be legal now but illegal under the new law.
What happened last night will not make the government listen. It will them more determined to go ahead. So we all lose.
That was exactly how the protest started, before the nutty minority went apeshit.
If it had been a legal protest with proper marshaling, no police would have been harmed. If you make protest illegal, you make it uncontrolled.
What a bollocks statement....proper marshalled legal protests included things like the student fee protests....which ended in similar violence. Same with anti-globalisation, BLM, anti-statue topplers, etc etc etc.
Certain causes attract certain types of people who are looking to cause trouble, the far left smash up the banks, Starbucks, McDonalds lot to the far right lot that try to fight everybody.
Yes, but criminal damage and assault are already illegal. Why criminalise the peaceful protesters too? One day you too may want to protest something.
That isn't what I am complaining about. I am pulling you up on your absolute nonsense that a few people in some high viz jackets marshalling would have stopped the police getting attacked.
Attacking police is already illegal.
You seem unable to read.
Tories seem unable to understand the importance of protest and of free speech.
There is a dark underside to the British love of authoritarianism.
Not a Tory...not doing well are you.
You seem to ve struggling with me not having any issue with protesting, just you naive luvvy comment about some.marshals yesterday and there just wouldn't have been any problems.
It is disturbing that Keir has not led in his honeymoon year.
Lawyers, intellectuals, academics, journos all love Keir. But, he does not seem to have the folksy charm to connect with the voters --- as Bill Clinton or Tony Blair did.
He comes across as cold, stilted, wooden. He is a male Theresa.
So, the header is right. Keir is a loser. He is probably a great guy, certainly compared to Boris. But, he is a loser and he is heading for defeat against Boris. Get rid.
Labour have plenty better options.
Really? Name three.
Better options .... Rayner or Nandy would be much trickier for Boris, I suspect.
Rayner, especially. would surely bring out the worst in the bumbling Old Etonian.
Any attractive woman would be a problem for him. I doubt he’d be able to focus on the job.
I suspect his charm would be lost on Ms Rayner.
I would love to see her in a top 4 job, like Shadow Home Sec. She would give Priti a very hard time, standing up for freedom.
She'd have to deal with idiots like Nadia Whittome first.
The morons rioting in Bristol last night have completely undermined any principled opposition to the Police Bill. Labour will be painted as weak on violence. The Tories will claim - wrongly - that this proves why such laws are needed (they're not as there are sufficient laws in place to deal with what happened last night). Meanwhile our freedoms are eroded further.
I have nothing but contempt for those Bristol fuckwits.
Sure, they are idiots but their violent actions are already illegal under existing law. The police Bill outlaws peaceful protest, not violent one's.
Worth remembering that we are at the 30th anniversary of the end of the Poll Tax. Sometimes protest and civil disobedience is necessary to make government's to listen.
I’m all for the right to protest and I am dismayed by a the glibness with which we throw away our liberties, however, last night revealed a big problem with most protest movements in the UK. They get hijacked by a ghastly combination of middle class hipsters, bored students, militant Marxists, sinister Antifa, ridiculous wankers, actual anarchists, and ladies who like to poo in public. Then they all take selfies and go on Instagram.
As a result they all run out of steam and end up absurd or reviled.
I had several friends who are - or were - passionately XR but left it in despair at the invasion of Marxism, identity politics and idiot rich girls from Kew who wanted to do special dances down Regent Street
I imagine protest movements in history have often been quite like this. Protest attracts eccentrics, students, rich people who have the time, BUT social media amplifies and broadcasts their wankiness, deleteriously
You need people willing to be a bit crazy to take on and change a system which may well need changing, and that comes with some risks. But the hijacking obsessives and performative perennial protestors really are a fantastic recruiter for the Conservatives electorally, which must be very frustrating for people supporting that cause.
I'd have thought one of the best ways to enact radical change is for people to not see it as radical change. That doesn't require being dishonest, it can be as simple as not also peppering your plans with every cliched radical message possible. Be targeted and slick. So even if it is an acknowledged radical proposal, it doesn't spook people like doommongering revolutionary rhetoric from the riotous element.
More than anything else this new breed of Corbynite MPs and the like are just plain ineffective at pushing for what they want, when despite his critics if Keir proposed the same thing he'd get more of an airing. Indeed, they're more effective at causing a counter-reaction.
The Tories are not masters of politics, but you don't have to make it easy for them even so.
You see it every time. By about the third high profile protest, in any salient cause, out come the Palestinian flags. Socialist worker placards. BLM chants. Antifa in balaclavas. Transgender activists with baseball bats.
It makes the message looks depressingly diffuse and everyone else shrugs and says Them. It must, as you say, be exasperating for people who care about one particular cause and don’t want it linked with Palestine or Trans rights, however worthy those other causes might be.
Ah, another opportunity to mention my old favourite, the Campaign for Better Buses (as infiltrated by the far left after 5 minutes), now updated for 2021!
'Manifesto of the Campaign for Better Buses'
1. Abolish capitalism. 2. Abolish capitalism. 3. Abolish capitalism. 4. Decolonize buses. 5. Something something Israel. 6. Burn police vans. 7. Shit on the floor. . . 369. What is a bus again?
It is disturbing that Keir has not led in his honeymoon year.
Lawyers, intellectuals, academics, journos all love Keir. But, he does not seem to have the folksy charm to connect with the voters --- as Bill Clinton or Tony Blair did.
He comes across as cold, stilted, wooden. He is a male Theresa.
So, the header is right. Keir is a loser. He is probably a great guy, certainly compared to Boris. But, he is a loser and he is heading for defeat against Boris. Get rid.
Labour have plenty better options.
Really? Name three.
Better options .... Rayner or Nandy would be much trickier for Boris, I suspect.
Rayner, especially. would surely bring out the worst in the bumbling Old Etonian.
Any attractive woman would be a problem for him. I doubt he’d be able to focus on the job.
I suspect his charm would be lost on Ms Rayner.
I would love to see her in a top 4 job, like Shadow Home Sec. She would give Priti a very hard time, standing up for freedom.
She'd have to deal with idiots like Nadia Whittome first.
The morons rioting in Bristol last night have completely undermined any principled opposition to the Police Bill. Labour will be painted as weak on violence. The Tories will claim - wrongly - that this proves why such laws are needed (they're not as there are sufficient laws in place to deal with what happened last night). Meanwhile our freedoms are eroded further.
I have nothing but contempt for those Bristol fuckwits.
Sure, they are idiots but their violent actions are already illegal under existing law. The police Bill outlaws peaceful protest, not violent one's.
Worth remembering that we are at the 30th anniversary of the end of the Poll Tax. Sometimes protest and civil disobedience is necessary to make government's to listen.
I know. That is my precise point. The best way to protest would have been a demonstration which would be legal now but illegal under the new law.
What happened last night will not make the government listen. It will them more determined to go ahead. So we all lose.
That was exactly how the protest started, before the nutty minority went apeshit.
If it had been a legal protest with proper marshaling, no police would have been harmed. If you make protest illegal, you make it uncontrolled.
What a bollocks statement....proper marshalled legal protests included things like the student fee protests....which ended in similar violence. Same with anti-globalisation, BLM, anti-statue topplers, etc etc etc.
Certain causes attract certain types of people who are looking to cause trouble, the far left smash up the banks, Starbucks, McDonalds lot to the far right lot that try to fight everybody.
Yes, but criminal damage and assault are already illegal. Why criminalise the peaceful protesters too? One day you too may want to protest something.
That isn't what I am complaining about. I am pulling you up on your absolute nonsense that a few people in some high viz jackets marshalling would have stopped the police getting attacked.
Attacking police is already illegal.
You seem unable to read.
Tories seem unable to understand the importance of protest and of free speech.
There is a dark underside to the British love of authoritarianism.
Not a Tory...not doing well are you.
You seem to ve struggling with me not having any issue with protesting, just you naive luvvy comment about some.marshals yesterday and there just wouldn't have been any problems.
We can never be certain, but proper marshaling is the key to self regulation of protests.
You may not be Tory, but you are an apologist for them.
He must have seen my post - and yes the new policy is still insane!
The policy of the EU, EMA and various EU member states on AZ is now officially outwith my comprehension. I am wondering if this is deliberate and it is actually performance art. The theatre of the absurd. It is meant to bewilder
Go back to last year and the UK not joining the EU vaccine programme was ridiculed by Remainers. Right now it looks like literally the best decision the UK has made in decades. Maybe it was just pure luck, rather than any particular insight or design, but either way it was clearly the right decision.
It was by design. The UK scheme was designed around being an investment partner with pharma for manufacturing and capacity enlargement. Our deals with AZ, Novavax, CureVac and Valneva are based on that concept and our deal with Pfizer was based on speed and paying whatever Pfizer wanted to get in early.
The EU scheme was incompatible with both of these goals and the scheme would have required us to give up our existing deals with AZ and Pfizer to the EU scheme and for AZ scheme to be downgraded to purchaser rather than partner with all of the "best reasonable efforts" clauses it came with.
Joining the EU scheme was never going to be on the cards for us, the whole government approach to the virus has been "whatever it takes" and the aim for vaccines was to be among the first to be fully vaccinated (and we're probably going to be the first major nation to achieve that). That goal and our approach is the opposite to what the EU scheme asked us to do.
The fact that our rejection of the scheme on the grounds that it would cause "costly delays" led to no reflection at all within the EU shows how much the UK was regarded as a joke state. In the words of Bob Monkhouse, they're not laughing now.
To be fair, the EU arguments did seem plausible - combine the spending power of the EU, enforce this on pharma, get the best deal and the quickest jabs, don’t get out-muscled by America or China. That’s why I think a Remaining UK govt would have fallen into line. It makes sense, prima facie
I am glad our Leaving, Brexiteering govt saw a different route, and realised the flaws in the EU’s proposal
The idea that prime minister Cameron, his winning Remain vote in his wallet, would have opted out, is nuts. He’s a pragmatic, instinctive europhile who lacks imagination
No, it never made sense which is why the government rejected it.
The Americans didn't outmuscle anyone based on market size (neither did we). They did it by spending 9 times as much money per capita on vaccine development and procurement than the EU. Our vaccine scheme had a higher price tag than the EU scheme did before they panic bought an extra 400m Pfizer doses and 200m Moderna doses for H2 delivery. One nation of 67m spent more on developing and buying vaccines than 27 nations of 447m.
That's what this boils down to, we spent billions on buying vaccines the US spent tens of billions. The reason is because every single extra month in lockdown costs us £25bn so the correct approach is to pay whatever it takes to get vaccinated ASAP.
I would never argue with your superior knowledge of vaccine procurement! - but you don’t get my point, which addresses a different issue
Imagine Cameron had won in 2016, and either he or Osborne (or an even more pro EU Labour govt) were in power when the pandemic hit. The idea of going our own way would not have occurred to them. It wouldn’t have been part of their world view. We voted remain. We are now good Europeans. Let’s got on with it and do everything alongside France and Germany, together leading the EU. We would have agreed and joined.
There are so many counter factuals it’s almost not worth arguing, but I am sure that’s how it would have played out
It is disturbing that Keir has not led in his honeymoon year.
Lawyers, intellectuals, academics, journos all love Keir. But, he does not seem to have the folksy charm to connect with the voters --- as Bill Clinton or Tony Blair did.
He comes across as cold, stilted, wooden. He is a male Theresa.
So, the header is right. Keir is a loser. He is probably a great guy, certainly compared to Boris. But, he is a loser and he is heading for defeat against Boris. Get rid.
Labour have plenty better options.
Really? Name three.
Better options .... Rayner or Nandy would be much trickier for Boris, I suspect.
Rayner, especially. would surely bring out the worst in the bumbling Old Etonian.
Any attractive woman would be a problem for him. I doubt he’d be able to focus on the job.
I suspect his charm would be lost on Ms Rayner.
I would love to see her in a top 4 job, like Shadow Home Sec. She would give Priti a very hard time, standing up for freedom.
She'd have to deal with idiots like Nadia Whittome first.
The morons rioting in Bristol last night have completely undermined any principled opposition to the Police Bill. Labour will be painted as weak on violence. The Tories will claim - wrongly - that this proves why such laws are needed (they're not as there are sufficient laws in place to deal with what happened last night). Meanwhile our freedoms are eroded further.
I have nothing but contempt for those Bristol fuckwits.
Sure, they are idiots but their violent actions are already illegal under existing law. The police Bill outlaws peaceful protest, not violent one's.
Worth remembering that we are at the 30th anniversary of the end of the Poll Tax. Sometimes protest and civil disobedience is necessary to make government's to listen.
I know. That is my precise point. The best way to protest would have been a demonstration which would be legal now but illegal under the new law.
What happened last night will not make the government listen. It will them more determined to go ahead. So we all lose.
That was exactly how the protest started, before the nutty minority went apeshit.
If it had been a legal protest with proper marshaling, no police would have been harmed. If you make protest illegal, you make it uncontrolled.
What a bollocks statement....proper marshalled legal protests included things like the student fee protests....which ended in similar violence. Same with anti-globalisation, BLM, anti-statue topplers, etc etc etc.
Certain causes attract certain types of people who are looking to cause trouble, the far left smash up the banks, Starbucks, McDonalds lot to the far right lot that try to fight everybody.
Yes, but criminal damage and assault are already illegal. Why criminalise the peaceful protesters too? One day you too may want to protest something.
That isn't what I am complaining about. I am pulling you up on your absolute nonsense that a few people in some high viz jackets marshalling would have stopped the police getting attacked.
Attacking police is already illegal.
You seem unable to read.
Tories seem unable to understand the importance of protest and of free speech.
There is a dark underside to the British love of authoritarianism.
Not a Tory...not doing well are you.
You seem to ve struggling with me not having any issue with protesting, just you naive luvvy comment about some.marshals yesterday and there just wouldn't have been any problems.
We can never be certain, but proper marshaling is the key to self regulation of protests.
You may not be Tory, but you are an apologist for them.
You clearly missed my 1000s of posts complaining about their shit handling of covid....and zero posts in support of this bill.....
He must have seen my post - and yes the new policy is still insane!
The policy of the EU, EMA and various EU member states on AZ is now officially outwith my comprehension. I am wondering if this is deliberate and it is actually performance art. The theatre of the absurd. It is meant to bewilder
Go back to last year and the UK not joining the EU vaccine programme was ridiculed by Remainers. Right now it looks like literally the best decision the UK has made in decades. Maybe it was just pure luck, rather than any particular insight or design, but either way it was clearly the right decision.
It was by design. The UK scheme was designed around being an investment partner with pharma for manufacturing and capacity enlargement. Our deals with AZ, Novavax, CureVac and Valneva are based on that concept and our deal with Pfizer was based on speed and paying whatever Pfizer wanted to get in early.
The EU scheme was incompatible with both of these goals and the scheme would have required us to give up our existing deals with AZ and Pfizer to the EU scheme and for AZ scheme to be downgraded to purchaser rather than partner with all of the "best reasonable efforts" clauses it came with.
Joining the EU scheme was never going to be on the cards for us, the whole government approach to the virus has been "whatever it takes" and the aim for vaccines was to be among the first to be fully vaccinated (and we're probably going to be the first major nation to achieve that). That goal and our approach is the opposite to what the EU scheme asked us to do.
The fact that our rejection of the scheme on the grounds that it would cause "costly delays" led to no reflection at all within the EU shows how much the UK was regarded as a joke state. In the words of Bob Monkhouse, they're not laughing now.
To be fair, the EU arguments did seem plausible - combine the spending power of the EU, enforce this on pharma, get the best deal and the quickest jabs, don’t get out-muscled by America or China. That’s why I think a Remaining UK govt would have fallen into line. It makes sense, prima facie
I am glad our Leaving, Brexiteering govt saw a different route, and realised the flaws in the EU’s proposal
The idea that prime minister Cameron, his winning Remain vote in his wallet, would have opted out, is nuts. He’s a pragmatic, instinctive europhile who lacks imagination
No, it never made sense which is why the government rejected it.
The Americans didn't outmuscle anyone based on market size (neither did we). They did it by spending 9 times as much money per capita on vaccine development and procurement than the EU. Our vaccine scheme had a higher price tag than the EU scheme did before they panic bought an extra 400m Pfizer doses and 200m Moderna doses for H2 delivery. One nation of 67m spent more on developing and buying vaccines than 27 nations of 447m.
That's what this boils down to, we spent billions on buying vaccines the US spent tens of billions. The reason is because every single extra month in lockdown costs us £25bn so the correct approach is to pay whatever it takes to get vaccinated ASAP.
I would never argue with your superior knowledge of vaccine procurement! - but you don’t get my point, which addresses a different issue
Imagine Cameron had won in 2016, and either he or Osborne (or an even more pro EU Labour govt) were in power when the pandemic hit. The idea of going our own way would not have occurred to them. It wouldn’t have been part of their world view. We voted remain. We are now good Europeans. Let’s got on with it and do everything alongside France and Germany, together leading the EU. We would have agreed and joined.
There are so many counter factuals it’s almost not worth arguing, but I am sure that’s how it would have played out
No, we would have done our own thing because that's what we did.
We were never properly in. Remain would not have made us "good Europeans".
He must have seen my post - and yes the new policy is still insane!
The policy of the EU, EMA and various EU member states on AZ is now officially outwith my comprehension. I am wondering if this is deliberate and it is actually performance art. The theatre of the absurd. It is meant to bewilder
Go back to last year and the UK not joining the EU vaccine programme was ridiculed by Remainers. Right now it looks like literally the best decision the UK has made in decades. Maybe it was just pure luck, rather than any particular insight or design, but either way it was clearly the right decision.
It was by design. The UK scheme was designed around being an investment partner with pharma for manufacturing and capacity enlargement. Our deals with AZ, Novavax, CureVac and Valneva are based on that concept and our deal with Pfizer was based on speed and paying whatever Pfizer wanted to get in early.
The EU scheme was incompatible with both of these goals and the scheme would have required us to give up our existing deals with AZ and Pfizer to the EU scheme and for AZ scheme to be downgraded to purchaser rather than partner with all of the "best reasonable efforts" clauses it came with.
Joining the EU scheme was never going to be on the cards for us, the whole government approach to the virus has been "whatever it takes" and the aim for vaccines was to be among the first to be fully vaccinated (and we're probably going to be the first major nation to achieve that). That goal and our approach is the opposite to what the EU scheme asked us to do.
The fact that our rejection of the scheme on the grounds that it would cause "costly delays" led to no reflection at all within the EU shows how much the UK was regarded as a joke state. In the words of Bob Monkhouse, they're not laughing now.
To be fair, the EU arguments did seem plausible - combine the spending power of the EU, enforce this on pharma, get the best deal and the quickest jabs, don’t get out-muscled by America or China. That’s why I think a Remaining UK govt would have fallen into line. It makes sense, prima facie
I am glad our Leaving, Brexiteering govt saw a different route, and realised the flaws in the EU’s proposal
The idea that prime minister Cameron, his winning Remain vote in his wallet, would have opted out, is nuts. He’s a pragmatic, instinctive europhile who lacks imagination
No, it never made sense which is why the government rejected it.
The Americans didn't outmuscle anyone based on market size (neither did we). They did it by spending 9 times as much money per capita on vaccine development and procurement than the EU. Our vaccine scheme had a higher price tag than the EU scheme did before they panic bought an extra 400m Pfizer doses and 200m Moderna doses for H2 delivery. One nation of 67m spent more on developing and buying vaccines than 27 nations of 447m.
That's what this boils down to, we spent billions on buying vaccines the US spent tens of billions. The reason is because every single extra month in lockdown costs us £25bn so the correct approach is to pay whatever it takes to get vaccinated ASAP.
And build in a future supply chain. In six months (probably sooner) our domestic supply will far outstrip our needs. We will be a mass exporter of vaccines. Something for the EU to keep sight of you would think? If they currently were capable of thinking more than a few days or weeks into the future.
Yes, the UK will go from being a vaccines nobody to being a vaccine superpower in a little under 2 years. By the middle of 2022 this county will have manufacturing capacity of over 2bn various vaccines. Before the virus we made about 20m doses of Japanese encephalitis vaccine in Scotland. Aiui the current supply agreements are just a starting point, the government is continuing to court international and domestic pharma and biotech companies for further investment in development and manufacturing of vaccines and therapeutics.
Are we taking the precaution of actually building any sites in England though?
Wouldn't want to make the Spanish mistake of placing all your powerhouse industries in places where separatism becomes a sound economic choice...
Lol, yeah there are. Though surely this is one of the benefits of being in the Union, these mega subsidies for industry wouldn't be available to Scotland. We spent £450m on subsidising Valneva, scaled to Scotland that would be unaffordable or a tiny sum which would not have got Valneva to commit to the expansion to at least 180m doses per year.
I’m all for the right to protest and I am dismayed by a the glibness with which we throw away our liberties, however, last night revealed a big problem with most protest movements in the UK. They get hijacked by a ghastly combination of middle class hipsters, bored students, militant Marxists, sinister Antifa, ridiculous wankers, actual anarchists, and ladies who like to poo in public. Then they all take selfies and go on Instagram.
As a result they all run out of steam and end up absurd or reviled.
I had several friends who are - or were - passionately XR but left it in despair at the invasion of Marxism, identity politics and idiot rich girls from Kew who wanted to do special dances down Regent Street
I imagine protest movements in history have often been quite like this. Protest attracts eccentrics, students, rich people who have the time, BUT social media amplifies and broadcasts their wankiness, deleteriously
Do the protests in places like Thailand, Hong Kong, and Myanmar attract the same oxygen wasters? They don't seem to, or at least they don't get any publicity in the West.
No, not at all. Take the Thai protests. I know them well. It’s mainly students but it’s also been middle class housewives, farmers, all sorts. They are serious and disciplined. And have clever messaging and there is no embarrassing narcissistic social media pantomime or at least very little
This is partly because the stakes are so much higher. Many have been shot dead over the years in Thai protests. That focuses the mind and probably deters the effete.
Stakes even higher in Myanmar.
Perhaps the plod should mow down a few XR crusties to improve the quality of future protests?
Joke!
Though radical anti-monarchists were attempting to burn pictures of the Thai King last week, something akin in the Thai psyche to graffiti on Churchill's statue.
I have a connection to Myanmar, and the protesters there vary between pro democracy students to separatist ethnic groups to narco warlords.
Was it the old king or the new king? Burning an image of the revered King Bumibhol - think of our own Queen and add possible divine status - would be almost unthinkable even for anarchist young Thais
But the new king is very different. A combination of prince andrew and Trump. Lots of Thais despise him. I can see many quietly cheering that on
It is disturbing that Keir has not led in his honeymoon year.
Lawyers, intellectuals, academics, journos all love Keir. But, he does not seem to have the folksy charm to connect with the voters --- as Bill Clinton or Tony Blair did.
He comes across as cold, stilted, wooden. He is a male Theresa.
So, the header is right. Keir is a loser. He is probably a great guy, certainly compared to Boris. But, he is a loser and he is heading for defeat against Boris. Get rid.
Labour have plenty better options.
Really? Name three.
Better options .... Rayner or Nandy would be much trickier for Boris, I suspect.
Rayner, especially. would surely bring out the worst in the bumbling Old Etonian.
Any attractive woman would be a problem for him. I doubt he’d be able to focus on the job.
I suspect his charm would be lost on Ms Rayner.
I would love to see her in a top 4 job, like Shadow Home Sec. She would give Priti a very hard time, standing up for freedom.
She'd have to deal with idiots like Nadia Whittome first.
The morons rioting in Bristol last night have completely undermined any principled opposition to the Police Bill. Labour will be painted as weak on violence. The Tories will claim - wrongly - that this proves why such laws are needed (they're not as there are sufficient laws in place to deal with what happened last night). Meanwhile our freedoms are eroded further.
I have nothing but contempt for those Bristol fuckwits.
Sure, they are idiots but their violent actions are already illegal under existing law. The police Bill outlaws peaceful protest, not violent one's.
Worth remembering that we are at the 30th anniversary of the end of the Poll Tax. Sometimes protest and civil disobedience is necessary to make government's to listen.
I’m all for the right to protest and I am dismayed by a the glibness with which we throw away our liberties, however, last night revealed a big problem with most protest movements in the UK. They get hijacked by a ghastly combination of middle class hipsters, bored students, militant Marxists, sinister Antifa, ridiculous wankers, actual anarchists, and ladies who like to poo in public. Then they all take selfies and go on Instagram.
As a result they all run out of steam and end up absurd or reviled.
I had several friends who are - or were - passionately XR but left it in despair at the invasion of Marxism, identity politics and idiot rich girls from Kew who wanted to do special dances down Regent Street
I imagine protest movements in history have often been quite like this. Protest attracts eccentrics, students, rich people who have the time, BUT social media amplifies and broadcasts their wankiness, deleteriously
You need people willing to be a bit crazy to take on and change a system which may well need changing, and that comes with some risks. But the hijacking obsessives and performative perennial protestors really are a fantastic recruiter for the Conservatives electorally, which must be very frustrating for people supporting that cause.
I'd have thought one of the best ways to enact radical change is for people to not see it as radical change. That doesn't require being dishonest, it can be as simple as not also peppering your plans with every cliched radical message possible. Be targeted and slick. So even if it is an acknowledged radical proposal, it doesn't spook people like doommongering revolutionary rhetoric from the riotous element.
More than anything else this new breed of Corbynite MPs and the like are just plain ineffective at pushing for what they want, when despite his critics if Keir proposed the same thing he'd get more of an airing. Indeed, they're more effective at causing a counter-reaction.
The Tories are not masters of politics, but you don't have to make it easy for them even so.
You see it every time. By about the third high profile protest, in any salient cause, out come the Palestinian flags. Socialist worker placards. BLM chants. Antifa in balaclavas. Transgender activists with baseball bats.
It makes the message looks depressingly diffuse and everyone else shrugs and says Them. It must, as you say, be exasperating for people who care about one particular cause and don’t want it linked with Palestine or Trans rights, however worthy those other causes might be.
Ah, another opportunity to mention my old favourite, the Campaign for Better Buses (as infiltrated by the far left after 5 minutes), now updated for 2021!
'Manifesto of the Campaign for Better Buses'
1. Abolish capitalism. 2. Abolish capitalism. 3. Abolish capitalism. 4. Decolonize buses. 5. Something something Israel. 6. Burn police vans. 7. Shit on the floor. . . 369. What is a bus again?
Not forgetting: 8. Russian buses are safer, better, cleaner, cheaper.
He must have seen my post - and yes the new policy is still insane!
The policy of the EU, EMA and various EU member states on AZ is now officially outwith my comprehension. I am wondering if this is deliberate and it is actually performance art. The theatre of the absurd. It is meant to bewilder
Go back to last year and the UK not joining the EU vaccine programme was ridiculed by Remainers. Right now it looks like literally the best decision the UK has made in decades. Maybe it was just pure luck, rather than any particular insight or design, but either way it was clearly the right decision.
It was by design. The UK scheme was designed around being an investment partner with pharma for manufacturing and capacity enlargement. Our deals with AZ, Novavax, CureVac and Valneva are based on that concept and our deal with Pfizer was based on speed and paying whatever Pfizer wanted to get in early.
The EU scheme was incompatible with both of these goals and the scheme would have required us to give up our existing deals with AZ and Pfizer to the EU scheme and for AZ scheme to be downgraded to purchaser rather than partner with all of the "best reasonable efforts" clauses it came with.
Joining the EU scheme was never going to be on the cards for us, the whole government approach to the virus has been "whatever it takes" and the aim for vaccines was to be among the first to be fully vaccinated (and we're probably going to be the first major nation to achieve that). That goal and our approach is the opposite to what the EU scheme asked us to do.
The fact that our rejection of the scheme on the grounds that it would cause "costly delays" led to no reflection at all within the EU shows how much the UK was regarded as a joke state. In the words of Bob Monkhouse, they're not laughing now.
To be fair, the EU arguments did seem plausible - combine the spending power of the EU, enforce this on pharma, get the best deal and the quickest jabs, don’t get out-muscled by America or China. That’s why I think a Remaining UK govt would have fallen into line. It makes sense, prima facie
I am glad our Leaving, Brexiteering govt saw a different route, and realised the flaws in the EU’s proposal
The idea that prime minister Cameron, his winning Remain vote in his wallet, would have opted out, is nuts. He’s a pragmatic, instinctive europhile who lacks imagination
No, it never made sense which is why the government rejected it.
The Americans didn't outmuscle anyone based on market size (neither did we). They did it by spending 9 times as much money per capita on vaccine development and procurement than the EU. Our vaccine scheme had a higher price tag than the EU scheme did before they panic bought an extra 400m Pfizer doses and 200m Moderna doses for H2 delivery. One nation of 67m spent more on developing and buying vaccines than 27 nations of 447m.
That's what this boils down to, we spent billions on buying vaccines the US spent tens of billions. The reason is because every single extra month in lockdown costs us £25bn so the correct approach is to pay whatever it takes to get vaccinated ASAP.
And build in a future supply chain. In six months (probably sooner) our domestic supply will far outstrip our needs. We will be a mass exporter of vaccines. Something for the EU to keep sight of you would think? If they currently were capable of thinking more than a few days or weeks into the future.
Do the EU want to be first in line for our exports when they're available before long?
Or back of the queue behind Covax?
Well, perhaps it depends on whether Brexit will allow them to import UK exports.
Like people been driven mad by Brexit, Trump Derangement Syndrome....Jon Oliver last night on his comedy show tied Trump calling coronavirus the China virus to the mass shooting of Asians Spa workers...
I think it may have been his worst episode segment, and I've seen all episodes in the last 8 years multiple times (the main piece on plastic waste was decent). Like the opening gag about wishing Prince Phillip had just died (he really dislikes monarchy) he obviously really really cares about racial issues, which is fair enough, but like a best selling author I get the impression it means he gets away with not reviewing or editing anything he or his writers put together on racial issue to make sure it gets across the message, it is polemic after all, but is also still effective to persuade.
He must have seen my post - and yes the new policy is still insane!
The policy of the EU, EMA and various EU member states on AZ is now officially outwith my comprehension. I am wondering if this is deliberate and it is actually performance art. The theatre of the absurd. It is meant to bewilder
Go back to last year and the UK not joining the EU vaccine programme was ridiculed by Remainers. Right now it looks like literally the best decision the UK has made in decades. Maybe it was just pure luck, rather than any particular insight or design, but either way it was clearly the right decision.
It was by design. The UK scheme was designed around being an investment partner with pharma for manufacturing and capacity enlargement. Our deals with AZ, Novavax, CureVac and Valneva are based on that concept and our deal with Pfizer was based on speed and paying whatever Pfizer wanted to get in early.
The EU scheme was incompatible with both of these goals and the scheme would have required us to give up our existing deals with AZ and Pfizer to the EU scheme and for AZ scheme to be downgraded to purchaser rather than partner with all of the "best reasonable efforts" clauses it came with.
Joining the EU scheme was never going to be on the cards for us, the whole government approach to the virus has been "whatever it takes" and the aim for vaccines was to be among the first to be fully vaccinated (and we're probably going to be the first major nation to achieve that). That goal and our approach is the opposite to what the EU scheme asked us to do.
The fact that our rejection of the scheme on the grounds that it would cause "costly delays" led to no reflection at all within the EU shows how much the UK was regarded as a joke state. In the words of Bob Monkhouse, they're not laughing now.
To be fair, the EU arguments did seem plausible - combine the spending power of the EU, enforce this on pharma, get the best deal and the quickest jabs, don’t get out-muscled by America or China. That’s why I think a Remaining UK govt would have fallen into line. It makes sense, prima facie
I am glad our Leaving, Brexiteering govt saw a different route, and realised the flaws in the EU’s proposal
The idea that prime minister Cameron, his winning Remain vote in his wallet, would have opted out, is nuts. He’s a pragmatic, instinctive europhile who lacks imagination
No, it never made sense which is why the government rejected it.
The Americans didn't outmuscle anyone based on market size (neither did we). They did it by spending 9 times as much money per capita on vaccine development and procurement than the EU. Our vaccine scheme had a higher price tag than the EU scheme did before they panic bought an extra 400m Pfizer doses and 200m Moderna doses for H2 delivery. One nation of 67m spent more on developing and buying vaccines than 27 nations of 447m.
That's what this boils down to, we spent billions on buying vaccines the US spent tens of billions. The reason is because every single extra month in lockdown costs us £25bn so the correct approach is to pay whatever it takes to get vaccinated ASAP.
I would never argue with your superior knowledge of vaccine procurement! - but you don’t get my point, which addresses a different issue
Imagine Cameron had won in 2016, and either he or Osborne (or an even more pro EU Labour govt) were in power when the pandemic hit. The idea of going our own way would not have occurred to them. It wouldn’t have been part of their world view. We voted remain. We are now good Europeans. Let’s got on with it and do everything alongside France and Germany, together leading the EU. We would have agreed and joined.
There are so many counter factuals it’s almost not worth arguing, but I am sure that’s how it would have played out
Hmm, I think under Dave and George we'd still have gone our own way but it would now be impossible to resist the drum beat of "unity and solidarity" from the commission and other countries in the EU. It's an interesting counterfactual, maybe worthy of a header by a fiction writer...
He must have seen my post - and yes the new policy is still insane!
The policy of the EU, EMA and various EU member states on AZ is now officially outwith my comprehension. I am wondering if this is deliberate and it is actually performance art. The theatre of the absurd. It is meant to bewilder
Go back to last year and the UK not joining the EU vaccine programme was ridiculed by Remainers. Right now it looks like literally the best decision the UK has made in decades. Maybe it was just pure luck, rather than any particular insight or design, but either way it was clearly the right decision.
It was by design. The UK scheme was designed around being an investment partner with pharma for manufacturing and capacity enlargement. Our deals with AZ, Novavax, CureVac and Valneva are based on that concept and our deal with Pfizer was based on speed and paying whatever Pfizer wanted to get in early.
The EU scheme was incompatible with both of these goals and the scheme would have required us to give up our existing deals with AZ and Pfizer to the EU scheme and for AZ scheme to be downgraded to purchaser rather than partner with all of the "best reasonable efforts" clauses it came with.
Joining the EU scheme was never going to be on the cards for us, the whole government approach to the virus has been "whatever it takes" and the aim for vaccines was to be among the first to be fully vaccinated (and we're probably going to be the first major nation to achieve that). That goal and our approach is the opposite to what the EU scheme asked us to do.
The fact that our rejection of the scheme on the grounds that it would cause "costly delays" led to no reflection at all within the EU shows how much the UK was regarded as a joke state. In the words of Bob Monkhouse, they're not laughing now.
To be fair, the EU arguments did seem plausible - combine the spending power of the EU, enforce this on pharma, get the best deal and the quickest jabs, don’t get out-muscled by America or China. That’s why I think a Remaining UK govt would have fallen into line. It makes sense, prima facie
I am glad our Leaving, Brexiteering govt saw a different route, and realised the flaws in the EU’s proposal
The idea that prime minister Cameron, his winning Remain vote in his wallet, would have opted out, is nuts. He’s a pragmatic, instinctive europhile who lacks imagination
No, it never made sense which is why the government rejected it.
The Americans didn't outmuscle anyone based on market size (neither did we). They did it by spending 9 times as much money per capita on vaccine development and procurement than the EU. Our vaccine scheme had a higher price tag than the EU scheme did before they panic bought an extra 400m Pfizer doses and 200m Moderna doses for H2 delivery. One nation of 67m spent more on developing and buying vaccines than 27 nations of 447m.
That's what this boils down to, we spent billions on buying vaccines the US spent tens of billions. The reason is because every single extra month in lockdown costs us £25bn so the correct approach is to pay whatever it takes to get vaccinated ASAP.
I would never argue with your superior knowledge of vaccine procurement! - but you don’t get my point, which addresses a different issue
Imagine Cameron had won in 2016, and either he or Osborne (or an even more pro EU Labour govt) were in power when the pandemic hit. The idea of going our own way would not have occurred to them. It wouldn’t have been part of their world view. We voted remain. We are now good Europeans. Let’s got on with it and do everything alongside France and Germany, together leading the EU. We would have agreed and joined.
There are so many counter factuals it’s almost not worth arguing, but I am sure that’s how it would have played out
No, we would have done our own thing because that's what we did.
We were never properly in. Remain would not have made us "good Europeans".
Fair enough. An unwinnable argument for either side. A big What If
Let’s just be happy Boris and co saw a chance for brexit Britain to do it better. Rather than fucking it up. Again
I don't really care how the vaccine issue is resolved so long as it is resolved with no harm done to the UK's vaccination programme.
What I want above all is this:
- I want my 2nd Pfizer dose. - I want my husband's 2nd AZ vaccine dose. - I want my children to get vaccinated by this summer. - I want my daughter's business to reopen fully so that she can work, earn & make business & life plans again. - I want my sons to get fulfilling jobs - instead of facing repeated redundancy - & a real life. - I want us to get out of this dreary half existence when I can't even smile at anyone or have anyone smile back at me other than through a bloody screen, when I can't hug anyone or be hugged back, when I can't meet anyone new, when all the serendipity of life is squeezed out.
Anyone stopping that for no good reason - out of petulance or panic or hatred or a desire to continue micro-managing my life - will get my undying hatred.
That is all.
Look on the bright side. There may be some validity in the case for mixing and matching vaccines.
My fear is not getting any sort of second dose at all. Me getting vaccinated, though, is the least of my worries. It is my children's work prospects which keeps me up at night. They will have - on the current timetable - have lost 15 months out of their life, at a time when this matters for work, relationships etc. Any slippage .....
Well I got good news today. My 20-year-old grand-daughter has got a new job in a nursery school, now they are re-opening. She had been in a temporary job in a call centre on 'track and trace' of all things.
He must have seen my post - and yes the new policy is still insane!
The policy of the EU, EMA and various EU member states on AZ is now officially outwith my comprehension. I am wondering if this is deliberate and it is actually performance art. The theatre of the absurd. It is meant to bewilder
Go back to last year and the UK not joining the EU vaccine programme was ridiculed by Remainers. Right now it looks like literally the best decision the UK has made in decades. Maybe it was just pure luck, rather than any particular insight or design, but either way it was clearly the right decision.
It was by design. The UK scheme was designed around being an investment partner with pharma for manufacturing and capacity enlargement. Our deals with AZ, Novavax, CureVac and Valneva are based on that concept and our deal with Pfizer was based on speed and paying whatever Pfizer wanted to get in early.
The EU scheme was incompatible with both of these goals and the scheme would have required us to give up our existing deals with AZ and Pfizer to the EU scheme and for AZ scheme to be downgraded to purchaser rather than partner with all of the "best reasonable efforts" clauses it came with.
Joining the EU scheme was never going to be on the cards for us, the whole government approach to the virus has been "whatever it takes" and the aim for vaccines was to be among the first to be fully vaccinated (and we're probably going to be the first major nation to achieve that). That goal and our approach is the opposite to what the EU scheme asked us to do.
The fact that our rejection of the scheme on the grounds that it would cause "costly delays" led to no reflection at all within the EU shows how much the UK was regarded as a joke state. In the words of Bob Monkhouse, they're not laughing now.
To be fair, the EU arguments did seem plausible - combine the spending power of the EU, enforce this on pharma, get the best deal and the quickest jabs, don’t get out-muscled by America or China. That’s why I think a Remaining UK govt would have fallen into line. It makes sense, prima facie
I am glad our Leaving, Brexiteering govt saw a different route, and realised the flaws in the EU’s proposal
The idea that prime minister Cameron, his winning Remain vote in his wallet, would have opted out, is nuts. He’s a pragmatic, instinctive europhile who lacks imagination
No, it never made sense which is why the government rejected it.
The Americans didn't outmuscle anyone based on market size (neither did we). They did it by spending 9 times as much money per capita on vaccine development and procurement than the EU. Our vaccine scheme had a higher price tag than the EU scheme did before they panic bought an extra 400m Pfizer doses and 200m Moderna doses for H2 delivery. One nation of 67m spent more on developing and buying vaccines than 27 nations of 447m.
That's what this boils down to, we spent billions on buying vaccines the US spent tens of billions. The reason is because every single extra month in lockdown costs us £25bn so the correct approach is to pay whatever it takes to get vaccinated ASAP.
And build in a future supply chain. In six months (probably sooner) our domestic supply will far outstrip our needs. We will be a mass exporter of vaccines. Something for the EU to keep sight of you would think? If they currently were capable of thinking more than a few days or weeks into the future.
Yes, the UK will go from being a vaccines nobody to being a vaccine superpower in a little under 2 years. By the middle of 2022 this county will have manufacturing capacity of over 2bn various vaccines. Before the virus we made about 20m doses of Japanese encephalitis vaccine in Scotland. Aiui the current supply agreements are just a starting point, the government is continuing to court international and domestic pharma and biotech companies for further investment in development and manufacturing of vaccines and therapeutics.
Are we taking the precaution of actually building any sites in England though?
Wouldn't want to make the Spanish mistake of placing all your powerhouse industries in places where separatism becomes a sound economic choice...
Lol, yeah there are. Though surely this is one of the benefits of being in the Union, these mega subsidies for industry wouldn't be available to Scotland. We spent £450m on subsidising Valneva, scaled to Scotland that would be unaffordable or a tiny sum which would not have got Valneva to commit to the expansion to at least 180m doses per year.
The seed money for initial investment wouldn't be there. But once the industry is established...
Maybe in the long run the loss of economic clout as a small state would be felt. But a moment in time is all a separatist movement requires.
You can normally tell pretty quickly if a protest is going to turn into a riot by looking at the cause. Both pro EU and anti EU protests/marches, antifracking, countryside alliance, anti Iraq war were/are far more march/protest than riot. Reclaim the streets would probably have been in this category in normal times and was fucked up by the MET. Then there's the borderline ones both BLM and anti-lockdown probably in this category. Finally there's the anti capitalist/anti Tory hard left nonsense that always ends up in riots. The Bristol stuff was only ever going to end up in the riot category. It's mostly about the types of people protesting and what portion of the crowd are there to make a point (Anti iraq war, Brexit (Both sides)) - most of the crowd are there for that specific cause. But the sort of protest in Bristol will always have a massively disproportionate number of hard left/anarchist agitators so any real message is lost. And when you're setting police vans on fire, boy is that message lost.
It is disturbing that Keir has not led in his honeymoon year.
Lawyers, intellectuals, academics, journos all love Keir. But, he does not seem to have the folksy charm to connect with the voters --- as Bill Clinton or Tony Blair did.
He comes across as cold, stilted, wooden. He is a male Theresa.
So, the header is right. Keir is a loser. He is probably a great guy, certainly compared to Boris. But, he is a loser and he is heading for defeat against Boris. Get rid.
Labour have plenty better options.
Really? Name three.
Better options .... Rayner or Nandy would be much trickier for Boris, I suspect.
Rayner, especially. would surely bring out the worst in the bumbling Old Etonian.
Any attractive woman would be a problem for him. I doubt he’d be able to focus on the job.
I suspect his charm would be lost on Ms Rayner.
I would love to see her in a top 4 job, like Shadow Home Sec. She would give Priti a very hard time, standing up for freedom.
She'd have to deal with idiots like Nadia Whittome first.
The morons rioting in Bristol last night have completely undermined any principled opposition to the Police Bill. Labour will be painted as weak on violence. The Tories will claim - wrongly - that this proves why such laws are needed (they're not as there are sufficient laws in place to deal with what happened last night). Meanwhile our freedoms are eroded further.
I have nothing but contempt for those Bristol fuckwits.
Sure, they are idiots but their violent actions are already illegal under existing law. The police Bill outlaws peaceful protest, not violent one's.
Worth remembering that we are at the 30th anniversary of the end of the Poll Tax. Sometimes protest and civil disobedience is necessary to make government's to listen.
I know. That is my precise point. The best way to protest would have been a demonstration which would be legal now but illegal under the new law.
What happened last night will not make the government listen. It will them more determined to go ahead. So we all lose.
That was exactly how the protest started, before the nutty minority went apeshit.
If it had been a legal protest with proper marshaling, no police would have been harmed. If you make protest illegal, you make it uncontrolled.
What a bollocks statement....proper marshalled legal protests included things like the student fee protests....which ended in similar violence. Same with anti-globalisation, BLM, anti-statue topplers, etc etc etc.
Certain causes attract certain types of people who are looking to cause trouble, the far left smash up the banks, Starbucks, McDonalds lot to the far right lot that try to fight everybody.
Yes, but criminal damage and assault are already illegal. Why criminalise the peaceful protesters too? One day you too may want to protest something.
That isn't what I am complaining about. I am pulling you up on your absolute nonsense that a few people in some high viz jackets marshalling would have stopped the police getting attacked.
Attacking police is already illegal.
You seem unable to read.
Tories seem unable to understand the importance of protest and of free speech.
There is a dark underside to the British love of authoritarianism.
Not a Tory...not doing well are you.
You seem to ve struggling with me not having any issue with protesting, just you naive luvvy comment about some.marshals yesterday and there just wouldn't have been any problems.
We can never be certain, but proper marshaling is the key to self regulation of protests.
You may not be Tory, but you are an apologist for them.
You clearly missed my 1000s of posts complaining about their shit handling of covid....and zero posts in support of this bill.....
Yes, I must have.
What is the point that you are trying to make?
I just believe that existing laws are sufficient for policing demonstrations, and that occasional problems at demonstrations are to be expected in a free society.
Like people been driven mad by Brexit, Trump Derangement Syndrome....Jon Oliver last night on his comedy show tied Trump calling coronavirus the China virus to the mass shooting of Asians Spa workers...
I think it may have been his worst episode segment, and I've seen all episodes in the last 8 years multiple times (the main piece on plastic waste was decent). Like the opening gag about wishing Prince Phillip had just died (he really dislikes monarchy) he obviously really really cares about racial issues, which is fair enough, but like a best selling author I get the impression it means he gets away with not reviewing or editing anything he or his writers put together on racial issue to make sure it gets across the message, it is polemic after all, but is also still effective to persuade.
I used to really like the show, but it has become a bore fest. Orange man bad for 10 mins, now a story, and somehow its still Orange man bad or an idiot who must like orange man and therefore is bad.
I hoped with Trump gone, maybe he would move on, but no, still its orange man responsible for mass shooting of asian spa workers, because he called covid the china virus.
The best comedy is when there is an element of unpredictability....as I have said before, I have always enjoyed Mark Thomas, because yes you know you probably going to get Tory rant, but you also get jibes and funny stories about folk Mark actually calls friends or certain generally agrees with.
If we're being critical of the EU talking of EU vaccines being exported when it is companies with manufacturing based in the EU, shouldn't we also be more precise when talking about the UK creating and exporting vaccines as companies with manufacturing based in the UK?
Undoubtedly, but when I was at school a long time ago economic geography always did refer to countries' exports.
I'm not sure why the distinction grew up between EU exports and firms' exports.
You can normally tell pretty quickly if a protest is going to turn into a riot by looking at the cause. Both pro EU and anti EU protests/marches, antifracking, countryside alliance, anti Iraq war were/are far more march/protest than riot. Reclaim the streets would probably have been in this category in normal times and was fucked up by the MET. Then there's the borderline ones both BLM and anti-lockdown probably in this category. Finally there's the anti capitalist/anti Tory hard left nonsense that always ends up in riots. The Bristol stuff was only ever going to end up in the riot category. It's mostly about the types of people protesting and what portion of the crowd are there to make a point (Anti iraq war, Brexit (Both sides)) - most of the crowd are there for that specific cause. But the sort of protest in Bristol will always have a massively disproportionate number of hard left/anarchist agitators so any real message is lost. And when you're setting police vans on fire, boy is that message lost.
You miss out the EDL type protest that very often result in trouble. It is not just the radical left.
He must have seen my post - and yes the new policy is still insane!
The policy of the EU, EMA and various EU member states on AZ is now officially outwith my comprehension. I am wondering if this is deliberate and it is actually performance art. The theatre of the absurd. It is meant to bewilder
Go back to last year and the UK not joining the EU vaccine programme was ridiculed by Remainers. Right now it looks like literally the best decision the UK has made in decades. Maybe it was just pure luck, rather than any particular insight or design, but either way it was clearly the right decision.
It was by design. The UK scheme was designed around being an investment partner with pharma for manufacturing and capacity enlargement. Our deals with AZ, Novavax, CureVac and Valneva are based on that concept and our deal with Pfizer was based on speed and paying whatever Pfizer wanted to get in early.
The EU scheme was incompatible with both of these goals and the scheme would have required us to give up our existing deals with AZ and Pfizer to the EU scheme and for AZ scheme to be downgraded to purchaser rather than partner with all of the "best reasonable efforts" clauses it came with.
Joining the EU scheme was never going to be on the cards for us, the whole government approach to the virus has been "whatever it takes" and the aim for vaccines was to be among the first to be fully vaccinated (and we're probably going to be the first major nation to achieve that). That goal and our approach is the opposite to what the EU scheme asked us to do.
The fact that our rejection of the scheme on the grounds that it would cause "costly delays" led to no reflection at all within the EU shows how much the UK was regarded as a joke state. In the words of Bob Monkhouse, they're not laughing now.
To be fair, the EU arguments did seem plausible - combine the spending power of the EU, enforce this on pharma, get the best deal and the quickest jabs, don’t get out-muscled by America or China. That’s why I think a Remaining UK govt would have fallen into line. It makes sense, prima facie
I am glad our Leaving, Brexiteering govt saw a different route, and realised the flaws in the EU’s proposal
The idea that prime minister Cameron, his winning Remain vote in his wallet, would have opted out, is nuts. He’s a pragmatic, instinctive europhile who lacks imagination
No, it never made sense which is why the government rejected it.
The Americans didn't outmuscle anyone based on market size (neither did we). They did it by spending 9 times as much money per capita on vaccine development and procurement than the EU. Our vaccine scheme had a higher price tag than the EU scheme did before they panic bought an extra 400m Pfizer doses and 200m Moderna doses for H2 delivery. One nation of 67m spent more on developing and buying vaccines than 27 nations of 447m.
That's what this boils down to, we spent billions on buying vaccines the US spent tens of billions. The reason is because every single extra month in lockdown costs us £25bn so the correct approach is to pay whatever it takes to get vaccinated ASAP.
I would never argue with your superior knowledge of vaccine procurement! - but you don’t get my point, which addresses a different issue
Imagine Cameron had won in 2016, and either he or Osborne (or an even more pro EU Labour govt) were in power when the pandemic hit. The idea of going our own way would not have occurred to them. It wouldn’t have been part of their world view. We voted remain. We are now good Europeans. Let’s got on with it and do everything alongside France and Germany, together leading the EU. We would have agreed and joined.
There are so many counter factuals it’s almost not worth arguing, but I am sure that’s how it would have played out
No, we would have done our own thing because that's what we did.
We were never properly in. Remain would not have made us "good Europeans".
Fair enough. An unwinnable argument for either side. A big What If
Let’s just be happy Boris and co saw a chance for brexit Britain to do it better. Rather than fucking it up. Again
We went our own way on the financial crisis, and managed to avoid getting sucked in. Helped out a bit in Ireland. Not being in the Eurozone helped.
If there is one place even some Tories would not begrudge them making a comeback, one would think it would be Scotland.
Gods, to think the SNP only getting 35 seats out of 59 was a glorious result in 2017 (in fairness, those constituency bets for SCON to win seats were fabulous - single handedly kept me in the black for that election).
I’m all for the right to protest and I am dismayed by a the glibness with which we throw away our liberties, however, last night revealed a big problem with most protest movements in the UK. They get hijacked by a ghastly combination of middle class hipsters, bored students, militant Marxists, sinister Antifa, ridiculous wankers, actual anarchists, and ladies who like to poo in public. Then they all take selfies and go on Instagram.
As a result they all run out of steam and end up absurd or reviled.
I had several friends who are - or were - passionately XR but left it in despair at the invasion of Marxism, identity politics and idiot rich girls from Kew who wanted to do special dances down Regent Street
I imagine protest movements in history have often been quite like this. Protest attracts eccentrics, students, rich people who have the time, BUT social media amplifies and broadcasts their wankiness, deleteriously
Do the protests in places like Thailand, Hong Kong, and Myanmar attract the same oxygen wasters? They don't seem to, or at least they don't get any publicity in the West.
No, not at all. Take the Thai protests. I know them well. It’s mainly students but it’s also been middle class housewives, farmers, all sorts. They are serious and disciplined. And have clever messaging and there is no embarrassing narcissistic social media pantomime or at least very little
This is partly because the stakes are so much higher. Many have been shot dead over the years in Thai protests. That focuses the mind and probably deters the effete.
Stakes even higher in Myanmar.
Perhaps the plod should mow down a few XR crusties to improve the quality of future protests?
Joke!
Though radical anti-monarchists were attempting to burn pictures of the Thai King last week, something akin in the Thai psyche to graffiti on Churchill's statue.
I have a connection to Myanmar, and the protesters there vary between pro democracy students to separatist ethnic groups to narco warlords.
Talking of Myanmar (I’ve visited a couple of times. But only the far north) have you read From The Land of Green Ghosts? An incredible moving memoir of life under the ‘old’ regime with a mind boggling life story threading through. Highly recommended
You can normally tell pretty quickly if a protest is going to turn into a riot by looking at the cause. Both pro EU and anti EU protests/marches, antifracking, countryside alliance, anti Iraq war were/are far more march/protest than riot. Reclaim the streets would probably have been in this category in normal times and was fucked up by the MET. Then there's the borderline ones both BLM and anti-lockdown probably in this category. Finally there's the anti capitalist/anti Tory hard left nonsense that always ends up in riots. The Bristol stuff was only ever going to end up in the riot category. It's mostly about the types of people protesting and what portion of the crowd are there to make a point (Anti iraq war, Brexit (Both sides)) - most of the crowd are there for that specific cause. But the sort of protest in Bristol will always have a massively disproportionate number of hard left/anarchist agitators so any real message is lost. And when you're setting police vans on fire, boy is that message lost.
You miss out the EDL type protest that very often result in trouble. It is not just the radical left.
It is disturbing that Keir has not led in his honeymoon year.
Lawyers, intellectuals, academics, journos all love Keir. But, he does not seem to have the folksy charm to connect with the voters --- as Bill Clinton or Tony Blair did.
He comes across as cold, stilted, wooden. He is a male Theresa.
So, the header is right. Keir is a loser. He is probably a great guy, certainly compared to Boris. But, he is a loser and he is heading for defeat against Boris. Get rid.
Labour have plenty better options.
Really? Name three.
Better options .... Rayner or Nandy would be much trickier for Boris, I suspect.
Rayner, especially. would surely bring out the worst in the bumbling Old Etonian.
Any attractive woman would be a problem for him. I doubt he’d be able to focus on the job.
I suspect his charm would be lost on Ms Rayner.
I would love to see her in a top 4 job, like Shadow Home Sec. She would give Priti a very hard time, standing up for freedom.
She'd have to deal with idiots like Nadia Whittome first.
The morons rioting in Bristol last night have completely undermined any principled opposition to the Police Bill. Labour will be painted as weak on violence. The Tories will claim - wrongly - that this proves why such laws are needed (they're not as there are sufficient laws in place to deal with what happened last night). Meanwhile our freedoms are eroded further.
I have nothing but contempt for those Bristol fuckwits.
Sure, they are idiots but their violent actions are already illegal under existing law. The police Bill outlaws peaceful protest, not violent one's.
Worth remembering that we are at the 30th anniversary of the end of the Poll Tax. Sometimes protest and civil disobedience is necessary to make government's to listen.
I know. That is my precise point. The best way to protest would have been a demonstration which would be legal now but illegal under the new law.
What happened last night will not make the government listen. It will them more determined to go ahead. So we all lose.
It demonstrates their point v nicely. However I do hope those identified will have exemplary sentences as in the riots....
It is disturbing that Keir has not led in his honeymoon year.
Lawyers, intellectuals, academics, journos all love Keir. But, he does not seem to have the folksy charm to connect with the voters --- as Bill Clinton or Tony Blair did.
He comes across as cold, stilted, wooden. He is a male Theresa.
So, the header is right. Keir is a loser. He is probably a great guy, certainly compared to Boris. But, he is a loser and he is heading for defeat against Boris. Get rid.
Labour have plenty better options.
Really? Name three.
Better options .... Rayner or Nandy would be much trickier for Boris, I suspect.
Rayner, especially. would surely bring out the worst in the bumbling Old Etonian.
Any attractive woman would be a problem for him. I doubt he’d be able to focus on the job.
I suspect his charm would be lost on Ms Rayner.
I would love to see her in a top 4 job, like Shadow Home Sec. She would give Priti a very hard time, standing up for freedom.
She'd have to deal with idiots like Nadia Whittome first.
The morons rioting in Bristol last night have completely undermined any principled opposition to the Police Bill. Labour will be painted as weak on violence. The Tories will claim - wrongly - that this proves why such laws are needed (they're not as there are sufficient laws in place to deal with what happened last night). Meanwhile our freedoms are eroded further.
I have nothing but contempt for those Bristol fuckwits.
Sure, they are idiots but their violent actions are already illegal under existing law. The police Bill outlaws peaceful protest, not violent one's.
Worth remembering that we are at the 30th anniversary of the end of the Poll Tax. Sometimes protest and civil disobedience is necessary to make government's to listen.
I know. That is my precise point. The best way to protest would have been a demonstration which would be legal now but illegal under the new law.
What happened last night will not make the government listen. It will them more determined to go ahead. So we all lose.
It demonstrates their point v nicely. However I do hope those identified will have exemplary sentences as in the riots....
He must have seen my post - and yes the new policy is still insane!
The policy of the EU, EMA and various EU member states on AZ is now officially outwith my comprehension. I am wondering if this is deliberate and it is actually performance art. The theatre of the absurd. It is meant to bewilder
Go back to last year and the UK not joining the EU vaccine programme was ridiculed by Remainers. Right now it looks like literally the best decision the UK has made in decades. Maybe it was just pure luck, rather than any particular insight or design, but either way it was clearly the right decision.
It was by design. The UK scheme was designed around being an investment partner with pharma for manufacturing and capacity enlargement. Our deals with AZ, Novavax, CureVac and Valneva are based on that concept and our deal with Pfizer was based on speed and paying whatever Pfizer wanted to get in early.
The EU scheme was incompatible with both of these goals and the scheme would have required us to give up our existing deals with AZ and Pfizer to the EU scheme and for AZ scheme to be downgraded to purchaser rather than partner with all of the "best reasonable efforts" clauses it came with.
Joining the EU scheme was never going to be on the cards for us, the whole government approach to the virus has been "whatever it takes" and the aim for vaccines was to be among the first to be fully vaccinated (and we're probably going to be the first major nation to achieve that). That goal and our approach is the opposite to what the EU scheme asked us to do.
The fact that our rejection of the scheme on the grounds that it would cause "costly delays" led to no reflection at all within the EU shows how much the UK was regarded as a joke state. In the words of Bob Monkhouse, they're not laughing now.
To be fair, the EU arguments did seem plausible - combine the spending power of the EU, enforce this on pharma, get the best deal and the quickest jabs, don’t get out-muscled by America or China. That’s why I think a Remaining UK govt would have fallen into line. It makes sense, prima facie
I am glad our Leaving, Brexiteering govt saw a different route, and realised the flaws in the EU’s proposal
The idea that prime minister Cameron, his winning Remain vote in his wallet, would have opted out, is nuts. He’s a pragmatic, instinctive europhile who lacks imagination
No, it never made sense which is why the government rejected it.
The Americans didn't outmuscle anyone based on market size (neither did we). They did it by spending 9 times as much money per capita on vaccine development and procurement than the EU. Our vaccine scheme had a higher price tag than the EU scheme did before they panic bought an extra 400m Pfizer doses and 200m Moderna doses for H2 delivery. One nation of 67m spent more on developing and buying vaccines than 27 nations of 447m.
That's what this boils down to, we spent billions on buying vaccines the US spent tens of billions. The reason is because every single extra month in lockdown costs us £25bn so the correct approach is to pay whatever it takes to get vaccinated ASAP.
I would never argue with your superior knowledge of vaccine procurement! - but you don’t get my point, which addresses a different issue
Imagine Cameron had won in 2016, and either he or Osborne (or an even more pro EU Labour govt) were in power when the pandemic hit. The idea of going our own way would not have occurred to them. It wouldn’t have been part of their world view. We voted remain. We are now good Europeans. Let’s got on with it and do everything alongside France and Germany, together leading the EU. We would have agreed and joined.
There are so many counter factuals it’s almost not worth arguing, but I am sure that’s how it would have played out
Hmm, I think under Dave and George we'd still have gone our own way but it would now be impossible to resist the drum beat of "unity and solidarity" from the commission and other countries in the EU. It's an interesting counterfactual, maybe worthy of a header by a fiction writer...
Cameron, front page of The Sun - 'We absolutely won't give the EU a single one of our vaccines'
*news gradually leaks out of half our vaccine supply in crates bound for Calais and the other half promised
You can normally tell pretty quickly if a protest is going to turn into a riot by looking at the cause. Both pro EU and anti EU protests/marches, antifracking, countryside alliance, anti Iraq war were/are far more march/protest than riot. Reclaim the streets would probably have been in this category in normal times and was fucked up by the MET. Then there's the borderline ones both BLM and anti-lockdown probably in this category. Finally there's the anti capitalist/anti Tory hard left nonsense that always ends up in riots. The Bristol stuff was only ever going to end up in the riot category. It's mostly about the types of people protesting and what portion of the crowd are there to make a point (Anti iraq war, Brexit (Both sides)) - most of the crowd are there for that specific cause. But the sort of protest in Bristol will always have a massively disproportionate number of hard left/anarchist agitators so any real message is lost. And when you're setting police vans on fire, boy is that message lost.
You miss out the EDL type protest that very often result in trouble. It is not just the radical left.
He must have seen my post - and yes the new policy is still insane!
The policy of the EU, EMA and various EU member states on AZ is now officially outwith my comprehension. I am wondering if this is deliberate and it is actually performance art. The theatre of the absurd. It is meant to bewilder
Go back to last year and the UK not joining the EU vaccine programme was ridiculed by Remainers. Right now it looks like literally the best decision the UK has made in decades. Maybe it was just pure luck, rather than any particular insight or design, but either way it was clearly the right decision.
It was by design. The UK scheme was designed around being an investment partner with pharma for manufacturing and capacity enlargement. Our deals with AZ, Novavax, CureVac and Valneva are based on that concept and our deal with Pfizer was based on speed and paying whatever Pfizer wanted to get in early.
The EU scheme was incompatible with both of these goals and the scheme would have required us to give up our existing deals with AZ and Pfizer to the EU scheme and for AZ scheme to be downgraded to purchaser rather than partner with all of the "best reasonable efforts" clauses it came with.
Joining the EU scheme was never going to be on the cards for us, the whole government approach to the virus has been "whatever it takes" and the aim for vaccines was to be among the first to be fully vaccinated (and we're probably going to be the first major nation to achieve that). That goal and our approach is the opposite to what the EU scheme asked us to do.
The fact that our rejection of the scheme on the grounds that it would cause "costly delays" led to no reflection at all within the EU shows how much the UK was regarded as a joke state. In the words of Bob Monkhouse, they're not laughing now.
To be fair, the EU arguments did seem plausible - combine the spending power of the EU, enforce this on pharma, get the best deal and the quickest jabs, don’t get out-muscled by America or China. That’s why I think a Remaining UK govt would have fallen into line. It makes sense, prima facie
I am glad our Leaving, Brexiteering govt saw a different route, and realised the flaws in the EU’s proposal
The idea that prime minister Cameron, his winning Remain vote in his wallet, would have opted out, is nuts. He’s a pragmatic, instinctive europhile who lacks imagination
No, it never made sense which is why the government rejected it.
The Americans didn't outmuscle anyone based on market size (neither did we). They did it by spending 9 times as much money per capita on vaccine development and procurement than the EU. Our vaccine scheme had a higher price tag than the EU scheme did before they panic bought an extra 400m Pfizer doses and 200m Moderna doses for H2 delivery. One nation of 67m spent more on developing and buying vaccines than 27 nations of 447m.
That's what this boils down to, we spent billions on buying vaccines the US spent tens of billions. The reason is because every single extra month in lockdown costs us £25bn so the correct approach is to pay whatever it takes to get vaccinated ASAP.
I would never argue with your superior knowledge of vaccine procurement! - but you don’t get my point, which addresses a different issue
Imagine Cameron had won in 2016, and either he or Osborne (or an even more pro EU Labour govt) were in power when the pandemic hit. The idea of going our own way would not have occurred to them. It wouldn’t have been part of their world view. We voted remain. We are now good Europeans. Let’s got on with it and do everything alongside France and Germany, together leading the EU. We would have agreed and joined.
There are so many counter factuals it’s almost not worth arguing, but I am sure that’s how it would have played out
Hmm, I think under Dave and George we'd still have gone our own way but it would now be impossible to resist the drum beat of "unity and solidarity" from the commission and other countries in the EU. It's an interesting counterfactual, maybe worthy of a header by a fiction writer...
Yes I think that the pressure now would be the bit they'd have struggled to resist, not the desire to stay out in the same place.
Which is part of the problem with our EU membership, with leaders who couldn't properly either go in to the centre of Europe or stay out properly either. It was a little bit "heads they win, tails we lose".
It is disturbing that Keir has not led in his honeymoon year.
Lawyers, intellectuals, academics, journos all love Keir. But, he does not seem to have the folksy charm to connect with the voters --- as Bill Clinton or Tony Blair did.
He comes across as cold, stilted, wooden. He is a male Theresa.
So, the header is right. Keir is a loser. He is probably a great guy, certainly compared to Boris. But, he is a loser and he is heading for defeat against Boris. Get rid.
Labour have plenty better options.
Really? Name three.
Better options .... Rayner or Nandy would be much trickier for Boris, I suspect.
Rayner, especially. would surely bring out the worst in the bumbling Old Etonian.
Any attractive woman would be a problem for him. I doubt he’d be able to focus on the job.
I suspect his charm would be lost on Ms Rayner.
I would love to see her in a top 4 job, like Shadow Home Sec. She would give Priti a very hard time, standing up for freedom.
She'd have to deal with idiots like Nadia Whittome first.
The morons rioting in Bristol last night have completely undermined any principled opposition to the Police Bill. Labour will be painted as weak on violence. The Tories will claim - wrongly - that this proves why such laws are needed (they're not as there are sufficient laws in place to deal with what happened last night). Meanwhile our freedoms are eroded further.
I have nothing but contempt for those Bristol fuckwits.
Sure, they are idiots but their violent actions are already illegal under existing law. The police Bill outlaws peaceful protest, not violent one's.
Worth remembering that we are at the 30th anniversary of the end of the Poll Tax. Sometimes protest and civil disobedience is necessary to make government's to listen.
I’m all for the right to protest and I am dismayed by a the glibness with which we throw away our liberties, however, last night revealed a big problem with most protest movements in the UK. They get hijacked by a ghastly combination of middle class hipsters, bored students, militant Marxists, sinister Antifa, ridiculous wankers, actual anarchists, and ladies who like to poo in public. Then they all take selfies and go on Instagram.
As a result they all run out of steam and end up absurd or reviled.
I had several friends who are - or were - passionately XR but left it in despair at the invasion of Marxism, identity politics and idiot rich girls from Kew who wanted to do special dances down Regent Street
I imagine protest movements in history have often been quite like this. Protest attracts eccentrics, students, rich people who have the time, BUT social media amplifies and broadcasts their wankiness, deleteriously
You need people willing to be a bit crazy to take on and change a system which may well need changing, and that comes with some risks. But the hijacking obsessives and performative perennial protestors really are a fantastic recruiter for the Conservatives electorally, which must be very frustrating for people supporting that cause.
I'd have thought one of the best ways to enact radical change is for people to not see it as radical change. That doesn't require being dishonest, it can be as simple as not also peppering your plans with every cliched radical message possible. Be targeted and slick. So even if it is an acknowledged radical proposal, it doesn't spook people like doommongering revolutionary rhetoric from the riotous element.
More than anything else this new breed of Corbynite MPs and the like are just plain ineffective at pushing for what they want, when despite his critics if Keir proposed the same thing he'd get more of an airing. Indeed, they're more effective at causing a counter-reaction.
The Tories are not masters of politics, but you don't have to make it easy for them even so.
You see it every time. By about the third high profile protest, in any salient cause, out come the Palestinian flags. Socialist worker placards. BLM chants. Antifa in balaclavas. Transgender activists with baseball bats.
It makes the message looks depressingly diffuse and everyone else shrugs and says Them. It must, as you say, be exasperating for people who care about one particular cause and don’t want it linked with Palestine or Trans rights, however worthy those other causes might be.
Ah, another opportunity to mention my old favourite, the Campaign for Better Buses (as infiltrated by the far left after 5 minutes), now updated for 2021!
'Manifesto of the Campaign for Better Buses'
1. Abolish capitalism. 2. Abolish capitalism. 3. Abolish capitalism. 4. Decolonize buses. 5. Something something Israel. 6. Burn police vans. 7. Shit on the floor. . . 369. What is a bus again?
Interesting you put "369"! There is no longer a "369" bus route in London, it was renunbered to "EL1" several years back.
Why are they delivering letters?! Eveyone being invited now has a phone and an internet connection. Send them a text with their NHS number and booking link. Letters are unnecessary and cumbersome.
I’m all for the right to protest and I am dismayed by a the glibness with which we throw away our liberties, however, last night revealed a big problem with most protest movements in the UK. They get hijacked by a ghastly combination of middle class hipsters, bored students, militant Marxists, sinister Antifa, ridiculous wankers, actual anarchists, and ladies who like to poo in public. Then they all take selfies and go on Instagram.
As a result they all run out of steam and end up absurd or reviled.
I had several friends who are - or were - passionately XR but left it in despair at the invasion of Marxism, identity politics and idiot rich girls from Kew who wanted to do special dances down Regent Street
I imagine protest movements in history have often been quite like this. Protest attracts eccentrics, students, rich people who have the time, BUT social media amplifies and broadcasts their wankiness, deleteriously
Do the protests in places like Thailand, Hong Kong, and Myanmar attract the same oxygen wasters? They don't seem to, or at least they don't get any publicity in the West.
No, not at all. Take the Thai protests. I know them well. It’s mainly students but it’s also been middle class housewives, farmers, all sorts. They are serious and disciplined. And have clever messaging and there is no embarrassing narcissistic social media pantomime or at least very little
This is partly because the stakes are so much higher. Many have been shot dead over the years in Thai protests. That focuses the mind and probably deters the effete.
Stakes even higher in Myanmar.
Perhaps the plod should mow down a few XR crusties to improve the quality of future protests?
Joke!
Though radical anti-monarchists were attempting to burn pictures of the Thai King last week, something akin in the Thai psyche to graffiti on Churchill's statue.
I have a connection to Myanmar, and the protesters there vary between pro democracy students to separatist ethnic groups to narco warlords.
Talking of Myanmar (I’ve visited a couple of times. But only the far north) have you read From The Land of Green Ghosts? An incredible moving memoir of life under the ‘old’ regime with a mind boggling life story threading through. Highly recommended
I went to Myanmar with a Buddhist missionary organisation, running a medical teaching course. I was the only western person for miles around. At 175cm, I have never felt so tall in my life.
The hospital had spies and informers, and when I was alone with people they would praise the NLD. I was always cautious though, as impossible to tell the difference between authentic resistance and agent provocateur. I didn't want to be the cause of someone being at the receiving end of what was then known as SLORC.
I even shook the hand of the local General, and praised the hospitals work, even as I attempted to teach the locals how to best repair the landmine victims of SLORC. It is my only experience of a true police state.
Why are they delivering letters?! Eveyone being invited now has a phone and an internet connection. Send them a text with their NHS number and booking link. Letters are unnecessary and cumbersome.
Why are they delivering letters?! Eveyone being invited now has a phone and an internet connection. Send them a text with their NHS number and booking link. Letters are unnecessary and cumbersome.
Yes it's bonkers. An email or text after people book online to a mass vac centre is clearly best. You then use GPs to "mop up" the hesitant/slower/less mobile populace.
It's not "good" but there are no "good" solutions. Short of concluding that the Government can afford to pay for the lot. Much of this debate has been characterised by the idea that all freeholders of blocks are evil capitalists out to screw every penny out of occupiers of the blocks they own. In reality most freeholders simply couldn't afford the cost either. And in many cases less so than the occupants.
Incidentally, surely the issue of tenants (if that is how it is characterised), as opposed to leaseholders, is a bit of a red herring. Tenants don't pay for major works directly. Costs can always be passed on through rents in theory, but it would require quite a hike to cover the cost of major works of this size. And would be subject to existing tenancy agreements on rent levels, and the tenant would have the option to go elsewhere if they objected. Rents are set in line with the market, not in line with the costs imposed on the landlords. For obvious reasons. If market rents don't cover the landlord costs then there's no option to hike them above what the market will pay.
It is disturbing that Keir has not led in his honeymoon year.
Lawyers, intellectuals, academics, journos all love Keir. But, he does not seem to have the folksy charm to connect with the voters --- as Bill Clinton or Tony Blair did.
He comes across as cold, stilted, wooden. He is a male Theresa.
So, the header is right. Keir is a loser. He is probably a great guy, certainly compared to Boris. But, he is a loser and he is heading for defeat against Boris. Get rid.
Labour have plenty better options.
Really? Name three.
Better options .... Rayner or Nandy would be much trickier for Boris, I suspect.
Rayner, especially. would surely bring out the worst in the bumbling Old Etonian.
Any attractive woman would be a problem for him. I doubt he’d be able to focus on the job.
I suspect his charm would be lost on Ms Rayner.
I would love to see her in a top 4 job, like Shadow Home Sec. She would give Priti a very hard time, standing up for freedom.
She'd have to deal with idiots like Nadia Whittome first.
The morons rioting in Bristol last night have completely undermined any principled opposition to the Police Bill. Labour will be painted as weak on violence. The Tories will claim - wrongly - that this proves why such laws are needed (they're not as there are sufficient laws in place to deal with what happened last night). Meanwhile our freedoms are eroded further.
I have nothing but contempt for those Bristol fuckwits.
Sure, they are idiots but their violent actions are already illegal under existing law. The police Bill outlaws peaceful protest, not violent one's.
Worth remembering that we are at the 30th anniversary of the end of the Poll Tax. Sometimes protest and civil disobedience is necessary to make government's to listen.
I’m all for the right to protest and I am dismayed by a the glibness with which we throw away our liberties, however, last night revealed a big problem with most protest movements in the UK. They get hijacked by a ghastly combination of middle class hipsters, bored students, militant Marxists, sinister Antifa, ridiculous wankers, actual anarchists, and ladies who like to poo in public. Then they all take selfies and go on Instagram.
As a result they all run out of steam and end up absurd or reviled.
I had several friends who are - or were - passionately XR but left it in despair at the invasion of Marxism, identity politics and idiot rich girls from Kew who wanted to do special dances down Regent Street
I imagine protest movements in history have often been quite like this. Protest attracts eccentrics, students, rich people who have the time, BUT social media amplifies and broadcasts their wankiness, deleteriously
You need people willing to be a bit crazy to take on and change a system which may well need changing, and that comes with some risks. But the hijacking obsessives and performative perennial protestors really are a fantastic recruiter for the Conservatives electorally, which must be very frustrating for people supporting that cause.
I'd have thought one of the best ways to enact radical change is for people to not see it as radical change. That doesn't require being dishonest, it can be as simple as not also peppering your plans with every cliched radical message possible. Be targeted and slick. So even if it is an acknowledged radical proposal, it doesn't spook people like doommongering revolutionary rhetoric from the riotous element.
More than anything else this new breed of Corbynite MPs and the like are just plain ineffective at pushing for what they want, when despite his critics if Keir proposed the same thing he'd get more of an airing. Indeed, they're more effective at causing a counter-reaction.
The Tories are not masters of politics, but you don't have to make it easy for them even so.
You see it every time. By about the third high profile protest, in any salient cause, out come the Palestinian flags. Socialist worker placards. BLM chants. Antifa in balaclavas. Transgender activists with baseball bats.
It makes the message looks depressingly diffuse and everyone else shrugs and says Them. It must, as you say, be exasperating for people who care about one particular cause and don’t want it linked with Palestine or Trans rights, however worthy those other causes might be.
Ah, another opportunity to mention my old favourite, the Campaign for Better Buses (as infiltrated by the far left after 5 minutes), now updated for 2021!
'Manifesto of the Campaign for Better Buses'
1. Abolish capitalism. 2. Abolish capitalism. 3. Abolish capitalism. 4. Decolonize buses. 5. Something something Israel. 6. Burn police vans. 7. Shit on the floor. . . 369. What is a bus again?
Interesting you put "369"! There is no longer a "369" bus route in London, it was renunbered to "EL1" several years back.
This confirms my theory that all human knowledge is to be found somewhere on PB...
Comments
If it had been a legal protest with proper marshaling, no police would have been harmed. If you make protest illegal, you make it uncontrolled.
The EU scheme was incompatible with both of these goals and the scheme would have required us to give up our existing deals with AZ and Pfizer to the EU scheme and for AZ scheme to be downgraded to purchaser rather than partner with all of the "best reasonable efforts" clauses it came with.
Joining the EU scheme was never going to be on the cards for us, the whole government approach to the virus has been "whatever it takes" and the aim for vaccines was to be among the first to be fully vaccinated (and we're probably going to be the first major nation to achieve that). That goal and our approach is the opposite to what the EU scheme asked us to do.
As a result they all run out of steam and end up absurd or reviled.
I had several friends who are - or were - passionately XR but left it in despair at the invasion of Marxism, identity politics and idiot rich girls from Kew who wanted to do special dances down Regent Street
I imagine protest movements in history have often been quite like this. Protest attracts eccentrics, students, rich people who have the time, BUT social media amplifies and broadcasts their wankiness, deleteriously
We were never that much into solidarity and were always half-divorced. Brexit just delivered the other half.
Certain causes attract certain types of people who are looking to cause trouble, the far left smash up the banks, Starbucks, McDonalds lot to the far right lot that try to fight everybody.
I am glad our Leaving, Brexiteering govt saw a different route, and realised the flaws in the EU’s proposal
The idea that prime minister Cameron, his winning Remain vote in his wallet, would have opted out, is nuts. He’s a pragmatic, instinctive europhile who lacks imagination
I'd have thought one of the best ways to enact radical change is for people to not see it as radical change. That doesn't require being dishonest, it can be as simple as not also peppering your plans with every cliched radical message possible. Be targeted and slick. So even if it is an acknowledged radical proposal, it doesn't spook people like doommongering revolutionary rhetoric from the riotous element.
More than anything else this new breed of Corbynite MPs and the like are just plain ineffective at pushing for what they want, when despite his critics if Keir proposed the same thing he'd get more of an airing. Indeed, they're more effective at causing a counter-reaction.
The Tories are not masters of politics, but you don't have to make it easy for them even so.
This is partly because the stakes are so much higher. Many have been shot dead over the years in Thai protests. That focuses the mind and probably deters the effete.
Stakes even higher in Myanmar.
Perhaps the plod should mow down a few XR crusties to improve the quality of future protests?
Joke!
The Americans didn't outmuscle anyone based on market size (neither did we). They did it by spending 9 times as much money per capita on vaccine development and procurement than the EU. Our vaccine scheme had a higher price tag than the EU scheme did before they panic bought an extra 400m Pfizer doses and 200m Moderna doses for H2 delivery. One nation of 67m spent more on developing and buying vaccines than 27 nations of 447m.
That's what this boils down to, we spent billions on buying vaccines the US spent tens of billions. The reason is because every single extra month in lockdown costs us £25bn so the correct approach is to pay whatever it takes to get vaccinated ASAP.
https://twitter.com/alexmassie/status/1374106823305887751?s=20
I have a connection to Myanmar, and the protesters there vary between pro democracy students to separatist ethnic groups to narco warlords.
But the SNP can hardly use that as a line of defence. If they'd have wanted to opt out of that part of the EU, what else would they want to opt out of? And given Scotland's size, it doesn't seem likely that they wouldn't have joined in.
It makes the message looks depressingly diffuse and everyone else shrugs and says Them. It must, as you say, be exasperating for people who care about one particular cause and don’t want it linked with Palestine or Trans rights, however worthy those other causes might be.
There is a dark underside to the British love of authoritarianism.
Trump 74 million votes
Or back of the queue behind Covax?
You seem to be struggling to understand me not having any issue with protesting, just your naive luvvy comment about some marshalls yesterday and there just wouldn't have been any problems. These protests don't attract just the middled aged middle class.folk who went on the Remainer march.
No amount of sensitive policing and clipboard wavers would have stopped violence at the anti-statue topplers either.
Wouldn't want to make the Spanish mistake of placing all your powerhouse industries in places where separatism becomes a sound economic choice...
Dickheads who want violence will seek it out.
More than one thing can be true at the same time.
'Manifesto of the Campaign for Better Buses'
1. Abolish capitalism.
2. Abolish capitalism.
3. Abolish capitalism.
4. Decolonize buses.
5. Something something Israel.
6. Burn police vans.
7. Shit on the floor.
.
.
369. What is a bus again?
You may not be Tory, but you are an apologist for them.
Imagine Cameron had won in 2016, and either he or Osborne (or an even more pro EU Labour govt) were in power when the pandemic hit. The idea of going our own way would not have occurred to them. It wouldn’t have been part of their world view. We voted remain. We are now good Europeans. Let’s got on with it and do everything alongside France and Germany, together leading the EU. We would have agreed and joined.
There are so many counter factuals it’s almost not worth arguing, but I am sure that’s how it would have played out
We were never properly in. Remain would not have made us "good Europeans".
But the new king is very different. A combination of prince andrew and Trump. Lots of Thais despise him. I can see many quietly cheering that on
Some graphic videos out there - Steve Lookner has one if anyone wants to see but I'm not linking directly
https://twitter.com/lookner
Let’s just be happy Boris and co saw a chance for brexit Britain to do it better. Rather than fucking it up. Again
Maybe in the long run the loss of economic clout as a small state would be felt. But a moment in time is all a separatist movement requires.
Both pro EU and anti EU protests/marches, antifracking, countryside alliance, anti Iraq war were/are far more march/protest than riot. Reclaim the streets would probably have been in this category in normal times and was fucked up by the MET.
Then there's the borderline ones both BLM and anti-lockdown probably in this category. Finally there's the anti capitalist/anti Tory hard left nonsense that always ends up in riots.
The Bristol stuff was only ever going to end up in the riot category.
It's mostly about the types of people protesting and what portion of the crowd are there to make a point (Anti iraq war, Brexit (Both sides)) - most of the crowd are there for that specific cause. But the sort of protest in Bristol will always have a massively disproportionate number of hard left/anarchist agitators so any real message is lost. And when you're setting police vans on fire, boy is that message lost.
SNP: 46% (-2)
LAB: 23% (+2)
CON: 22% (-1)
LDM: 7% (+1)
Via
@Survation
, 9-12 Mar.
Changes w/ 25-26 Feb.
Labour is making a comeback
What is the point that you are trying to make?
I just believe that existing laws are sufficient for policing demonstrations, and that occasional problems at demonstrations are to be expected in a free society.
I hoped with Trump gone, maybe he would move on, but no, still its orange man responsible for mass shooting of asian spa workers, because he called covid the china virus.
The best comedy is when there is an element of unpredictability....as I have said before, I have always enjoyed Mark Thomas, because yes you know you probably going to get Tory rant, but you also get jibes and funny stories about folk Mark actually calls friends or certain generally agrees with.
I'm not sure why the distinction grew up between EU exports and firms' exports.
Gods, to think the SNP only getting 35 seats out of 59 was a glorious result in 2017 (in fairness, those constituency bets for SCON to win seats were fabulous - single handedly kept me in the black for that election).
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2003/apr/12/featuresreviews.guardianreview20?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/103148
Two sides of the same coin.
*news gradually leaks out of half our vaccine supply in crates bound for Calais and the other half promised
Tories will be along to explain why this is good
Tories will be along to explain why this is good
https://twitter.com/ChrisMusson/status/1374107029510496256?s=20
Which is part of the problem with our EU membership, with leaders who couldn't properly either go in to the centre of Europe or stay out properly either. It was a little bit "heads they win, tails we lose".
https://twitter.com/BarnsH/status/1374116731015327746?s=20
BBC News - Facebook VR wristband powered via 'brain signals'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-56486802
The Adult industry will be busy developing apps...
I went to Myanmar with a Buddhist missionary organisation, running a medical teaching course. I was the only western person for miles around. At 175cm, I have never felt so tall in my life.
The hospital had spies and informers, and when I was alone with people they would praise the NLD. I was always cautious though, as impossible to tell the difference between authentic resistance and agent provocateur. I didn't want to be the cause of someone being at the receiving end of what was then known as SLORC.
I even shook the hand of the local General, and praised the hospitals work, even as I attempted to teach the locals how to best repair the landmine victims of SLORC. It is my only experience of a true police state.
https://twitter.com/ChrisMusson/status/1374107029510496256?s=20 They want to put them in blue envelopes.
You can't put a text in a blue envelope......
And I'm feeling a bit shite.
I will report again tomorrow should my degree of shiteness escalate from 'a bit' to 'totally'.
But it is worth it.
Night all.
Incidentally, surely the issue of tenants (if that is how it is characterised), as opposed to leaseholders, is a bit of a red herring. Tenants don't pay for major works directly. Costs can always be passed on through rents in theory, but it would require quite a hike to cover the cost of major works of this size. And would be subject to existing tenancy agreements on rent levels, and the tenant would have the option to go elsewhere if they objected. Rents are set in line with the market, not in line with the costs imposed on the landlords. For obvious reasons. If market rents don't cover the landlord costs then there's no option to hike them above what the market will pay.
Therefore, I expect it to to lose.