He's making the point that cases will inevitably rise as we unlock but that we have to accept it and carry on - isn't that exactly what you've been saying?
Boris Johnson has warned that coronavirus infections will rise as lockdown eases, but said there is no reason to change the proposed roadmap to end restrictions.
"People, I don't think, appreciate that it's the lockdown that has been overwhelmingly important in delivering this improvement," Mr Johnson said. "Of course the vaccination programme has helped, but the bulk of work in reducing disease has been done by the lockdown.
"So, as we unlock, the result will inevitably be that we will see more infection, sadly we will see more hospitalisation and deaths. People have just got to understand that."
This is hospitalisation R
Anyone want to bet that it
- goes up - stays the same - goes down
from this point on.
But when Boris says 'more' does he means the rate goes up (unlikely) or the cumulative total goes up (certain). I read his words to mean the latter.
US regulators recommend a pause in Johnson and Johnson vaccine due to blood clots
Is that not the vaccine the EU were depending on
Yes, it's been coming for a few days as well. I don't think J&J will be offered to any UK adults or any EU adults under 50. This, IMO, will push back EU full reopening date back to around October but not make any difference for the UK as J&J doesn't form a major part of our plan.
Not doing the deal with Novavax is going to hurt a lot and it's really frustrating because it's the people who will suffer through more death and lockdown while the politicians will get away with it.
it's impossible for this particular government to get a grip on this particular problem - rock bottom standards in public life - because it is led by an individual whose (very powerful) political brand is built upon encouraging the perception that such matters are "dull" and even a teeny bit "party pooping". So long as the public keep buying into the brand, keep rewarding its owner with their votes, there is no chance whatsoever of any progress on this. It will have to wait until there's a change at the top. Not any old change either. A big change.
BoZo's brand is built on cheating and lies.
The public are apparently fully supportive of that.
My point put rather more baldly!
I can tbf see the appeal of some facets of the Boris Brand. The positivity. The light touch. The vivid language. Not everything about it is toxic. But what is toxic - very - is the idea that a moral compass and a sense of public service is for po-faced dullards who take themselves and life too seriously. And sadly this comes with the product because it's integral to it.
You can't go to the store and say, "I'll have a Boris but one WITH a moral compass and sense of public service please."
That's not on the shelves.
Well it is though.
"A sense of public service" is typically used as a "redeeming" feature for the absolutely shit Prime Ministers we have had: Theresa May, Gordon Brown
The better Prime Ministers we've had - Boris himself, Dave, Blair - had a void where a moral compass and a sense of public service was meant to be, but they were far, far better Prime Ministers.
No appetite for a debate on "best PMs" but I do find it depressing if you've concluded that moral seriousness and a strong sense of public service is not only surplus to requirements but is actually something to be avoided. As it happens I believe you do genuinely feel this way - which illustrates very well the point I'm making. But I'd ask you to think seriously about it and if possible - with no pressure from me to admit it - realize that you are part of the problem.
I'm happy with sticking with saying that politicians who bang on about "morals", "moral majority", "moral seriousness" etc are the problem.
As for "public service" it blinds people into dogmatically thinking that what they're doing is right, because its part of the "service".
Keep your morals to yourself. Keep your public service to yourself. Politics should be about us making choices depending upon our own morals thank you. Politics should be about the public choosing what kind of service we want.
Not banging on about honesty and integrity. Just demonstrating some. It's important and ought to be a low bar.
Demand a little more, Philip. Politics is not like running a supermarket.
Integrity like "pretty straight kind of guy" Blair?
He's making the point that cases will inevitably rise as we unlock but that we have to accept it and carry on - isn't that exactly what you've been saying?
Boris Johnson has warned that coronavirus infections will rise as lockdown eases, but said there is no reason to change the proposed roadmap to end restrictions.
"People, I don't think, appreciate that it's the lockdown that has been overwhelmingly important in delivering this improvement," Mr Johnson said. "Of course the vaccination programme has helped, but the bulk of work in reducing disease has been done by the lockdown.
"So, as we unlock, the result will inevitably be that we will see more infection, sadly we will see more hospitalisation and deaths. People have just got to understand that."
This is hospitalisation R
Anyone want to bet that it
- goes up - stays the same - goes down
from this point on.
But when Boris says 'more' does he means the rate goes up (unlikely) or the cumulative total goes up (certain). I read his words to mean the latter.
At an R of 0.8, just about any change will put us back above 1.. Which means an increase.
In terms of legacy — it took a good 10-20 years before the true consequences of Devolution have only started to become clear.
We will have to wait the same time period before the true consequences of Brexit start to become clear.
Labour introduced the Minimum Wage but it was the Conservatives who ran with it with the "National Living Wage" etc. Perhaps in 10 years it will be Labour pushing "Brexit" to a new level.
There's so many unknowns.
Blame the consequences of devolution on the Blair years if you want. Devolution worked reasonably well (NI excepted for traditional reasons) until Johnson came in with his boots on.
Oh cut the crap.
It worked so well that Scotland has had a dominant nationalist majority in Holyrood since long before Johnson came in.
Asymmetric devolution has made a pigs breakfast of the union for years now. There is no solution to the WLQ, Holyrood has power but no responsibility so can just blame Westminster for everything bad, there's no English devolution and so on and so forth. Its a mess and not one of Johnson's making - not one that anybody has a solution for because there is no solution.
No matter what you do England will forever be worth more than 80% of MPs because simply England outweighs all nations tremendously. Its not a stable situation for a federal structure.
The WLQ predates Holyrood by 20+ years.
There needs to be an English Parliament.
All four Parliaments then need to raise most of their own money.
Agreed. Really the only thing which will save 'the union' will be devo max, and the removing of this tension.
but devomax doesn't work when one country will always overwhelm the other 3 as it has 80% of the population so will always end up with 80% of the vote.
I like @Luckyguy1983 's suggestion to give the proportional equivalent of one vote to each devolved nation and one vote to the "UK" parliament. That means that England only ever needs the support of one other home nation to railroad anything through, reflecting its relative size and importance.
I think that's a terrible idea.
One person, one vote. If that means England can get its way then so be it, England is over 80% of the union and that's democracy.
If the other nations don't want England to be able to act unilaterally, then they need to be independent of England. Its perfectly viable.
Let's not pretend you don't have a vested interest here. You want English independence so will poo poo any other suggestion to the contrary.
Federalism requires compromise if the Union is to be preserved. You may not want the Union to be preserved but plenty of people do.
That works with good faith partners. The SNP are not good faith partners. They want an end to the union.
Its like teaming up with someone who says 'I want to ditch you and will do everything I can to ditch you, and whilst we're together i'm going to keep slagging you off', that's not the basis for a lasting relationship.
Aye, poor, old good faith partners BJ and the Tory party being let down by other folk..
I'm talking about a fundamental basis of support for the union continuing. The truth isn't as clear-cut as that true, but the point remains.
For the last 20+ years part of the fundamental basis of of support for the union continuing is HMG accepting and supporting devolution. BJ & co have changed that, and as ye sow so shall ye reap.
A push for independence is not devolution it's separatism. It's the SNP which aren't interested in devolution as the endgame.
As I have said repeatedly (and no doubt tediously), if not for Brexit for which Scotland voted more enthusiastically against than England for, the SNP's main ambition would be aiming for the biggest party in the next Holyrood election, support for indy would be a steady 40-45% and Devolution would be stumbling along in it's incremental 'here's a wee bit more power' way. More sowing and reaping I'm afraid.
it's impossible for this particular government to get a grip on this particular problem - rock bottom standards in public life - because it is led by an individual whose (very powerful) political brand is built upon encouraging the perception that such matters are "dull" and even a teeny bit "party pooping". So long as the public keep buying into the brand, keep rewarding its owner with their votes, there is no chance whatsoever of any progress on this. It will have to wait until there's a change at the top. Not any old change either. A big change.
BoZo's brand is built on cheating and lies.
The public are apparently fully supportive of that.
My point put rather more baldly!
I can tbf see the appeal of some facets of the Boris Brand. The positivity. The light touch. The vivid language. Not everything about it is toxic. But what is toxic - very - is the idea that a moral compass and a sense of public service is for po-faced dullards who take themselves and life too seriously. And sadly this comes with the product because it's integral to it.
You can't go to the store and say, "I'll have a Boris but one WITH a moral compass and sense of public service please."
That's not on the shelves.
Well it is though.
"A sense of public service" is typically used as a "redeeming" feature for the absolutely shit Prime Ministers we have had: Theresa May, Gordon Brown
The better Prime Ministers we've had - Boris himself, Dave, Blair - had a void where a moral compass and a sense of public service was meant to be, but they were far, far better Prime Ministers.
No appetite for a debate on "best PMs" but I do find it depressing if you've concluded that moral seriousness and a strong sense of public service is not only surplus to requirements but is actually something to be avoided. As it happens I believe you do genuinely feel this way - which illustrates very well the point I'm making. But I'd ask you to think seriously about it and if possible - with no pressure from me to admit it - realize that you are part of the problem.
I'm happy with sticking with saying that politicians who bang on about "morals", "moral majority", "moral seriousness" etc are the problem.
As for "public service" it blinds people into dogmatically thinking that what they're doing is right, because its part of the "service".
Keep your morals to yourself. Keep your public service to yourself. Politics should be about us making choices depending upon our own morals thank you. Politics should be about the public choosing what kind of service we want.
Well said. 90% of the time that politicians start banging on about morality, it means they're about to do something I bitterly disagree with and is thoroughly against my interests.
I'll profer my theory again that politics is about who you would prefer to go for a pint with.
Certainly seems to work in US politics:
Biden vs Trump Trump vs Clinton H Obama vs Romney Obama vs McCain (the closest, perhaps) Bush GW vs Kerry Bush GW vs Gore Clinton W vs Dole Clinton W vs Bush GWH Bush GWH vs Dukakis (seemingly the exception, but really won for 'the Gipper') Reagan vs Mondale Reagan vs Carter Carter vs Ford
Trump was more charismatic than Biden however, Dukakis was also pretty dull in 1988
The post was about who you'd rather have beer with, not who is more charismatic.
We have bit of an issue in 2000 and 2016, when more people would prefer to share a pint with Gore and Hillary than the EC winners, unless of course that was your allusion.
He's making the point that cases will inevitably rise as we unlock but that we have to accept it and carry on - isn't that exactly what you've been saying?
Boris Johnson has warned that coronavirus infections will rise as lockdown eases, but said there is no reason to change the proposed roadmap to end restrictions.
"People, I don't think, appreciate that it's the lockdown that has been overwhelmingly important in delivering this improvement," Mr Johnson said. "Of course the vaccination programme has helped, but the bulk of work in reducing disease has been done by the lockdown.
"So, as we unlock, the result will inevitably be that we will see more infection, sadly we will see more hospitalisation and deaths. People have just got to understand that."
The messaging is stupid though – did you watch the clip? He needs to engage brain before opening mouth.
If we eliminate every medicine that has a 1 in 1,000,000 chance of severe side effects or death we will soon have no medicine at all.
It depends on whether those 6 people were all in the same demographic category. If they were all women under 30 then it's more like 1/100k and the US is also in the same invidious position as us where we're able to pick and choose our vaccines.
The biggest loser from this is the EU who are very dependent on this for their summer targets for "full vaccination". It would be difficult for the same countries restricting AZ use to older people to also not do it for J&J.
He's making the point that cases will inevitably rise as we unlock but that we have to accept it and carry on - isn't that exactly what you've been saying?
Boris Johnson has warned that coronavirus infections will rise as lockdown eases, but said there is no reason to change the proposed roadmap to end restrictions.
"People, I don't think, appreciate that it's the lockdown that has been overwhelmingly important in delivering this improvement," Mr Johnson said. "Of course the vaccination programme has helped, but the bulk of work in reducing disease has been done by the lockdown.
"So, as we unlock, the result will inevitably be that we will see more infection, sadly we will see more hospitalisation and deaths. People have just got to understand that."
The messaging is stupid though – did you watch the clip? He needs to engage brain before opening mouth.
Yes, the message should be "keep vaccinating" nothing else.
In terms of legacy — it took a good 10-20 years before the true consequences of Devolution have only started to become clear.
We will have to wait the same time period before the true consequences of Brexit start to become clear.
Labour introduced the Minimum Wage but it was the Conservatives who ran with it with the "National Living Wage" etc. Perhaps in 10 years it will be Labour pushing "Brexit" to a new level.
There's so many unknowns.
Blame the consequences of devolution on the Blair years if you want. Devolution worked reasonably well (NI excepted for traditional reasons) until Johnson came in with his boots on.
Oh cut the crap.
It worked so well that Scotland has had a dominant nationalist majority in Holyrood since long before Johnson came in.
Asymmetric devolution has made a pigs breakfast of the union for years now. There is no solution to the WLQ, Holyrood has power but no responsibility so can just blame Westminster for everything bad, there's no English devolution and so on and so forth. Its a mess and not one of Johnson's making - not one that anybody has a solution for because there is no solution.
No matter what you do England will forever be worth more than 80% of MPs because simply England outweighs all nations tremendously. Its not a stable situation for a federal structure.
The WLQ predates Holyrood by 20+ years.
There needs to be an English Parliament.
All four Parliaments then need to raise most of their own money.
Agreed. Really the only thing which will save 'the union' will be devo max, and the removing of this tension.
but devomax doesn't work when one country will always overwhelm the other 3 as it has 80% of the population so will always end up with 80% of the vote.
I like @Luckyguy1983 's suggestion to give the proportional equivalent of one vote to each devolved nation and one vote to the "UK" parliament. That means that England only ever needs the support of one other home nation to railroad anything through, reflecting its relative size and importance.
I think that's a terrible idea.
One person, one vote. If that means England can get its way then so be it, England is over 80% of the union and that's democracy.
If the other nations don't want England to be able to act unilaterally, then they need to be independent of England. Its perfectly viable.
I think the problem is the idea of England as a monolith. If you had devolution to English regions then you would be able to see the differences within England between the South-East and the North-West.
There seems quite a strong feeling within parts of England for decisions to be devolved away from London.
If the largest constituent part of the UK is Greater London, then it's much harder for Scottish Nationalists to create a grievance about being bullied by a colonialist England.
He's making the point that cases will inevitably rise as we unlock but that we have to accept it and carry on - isn't that exactly what you've been saying?
Boris Johnson has warned that coronavirus infections will rise as lockdown eases, but said there is no reason to change the proposed roadmap to end restrictions.
"People, I don't think, appreciate that it's the lockdown that has been overwhelmingly important in delivering this improvement," Mr Johnson said. "Of course the vaccination programme has helped, but the bulk of work in reducing disease has been done by the lockdown.
"So, as we unlock, the result will inevitably be that we will see more infection, sadly we will see more hospitalisation and deaths. People have just got to understand that."
The messaging is stupid though – did you watch the clip? He needs to engage brain before opening mouth.
I'm just going by his direct quotes. He's doing what you want - take yes for an answer!
it's impossible for this particular government to get a grip on this particular problem - rock bottom standards in public life - because it is led by an individual whose (very powerful) political brand is built upon encouraging the perception that such matters are "dull" and even a teeny bit "party pooping". So long as the public keep buying into the brand, keep rewarding its owner with their votes, there is no chance whatsoever of any progress on this. It will have to wait until there's a change at the top. Not any old change either. A big change.
BoZo's brand is built on cheating and lies.
The public are apparently fully supportive of that.
My point put rather more baldly!
I can tbf see the appeal of some facets of the Boris Brand. The positivity. The light touch. The vivid language. Not everything about it is toxic. But what is toxic - very - is the idea that a moral compass and a sense of public service is for po-faced dullards who take themselves and life too seriously. And sadly this comes with the product because it's integral to it.
You can't go to the store and say, "I'll have a Boris but one WITH a moral compass and sense of public service please."
That's not on the shelves.
Well it is though.
"A sense of public service" is typically used as a "redeeming" feature for the absolutely shit Prime Ministers we have had: Theresa May, Gordon Brown
The better Prime Ministers we've had - Boris himself, Dave, Blair - had a void where a moral compass and a sense of public service was meant to be, but they were far, far better Prime Ministers.
No appetite for a debate on "best PMs" but I do find it depressing if you've concluded that moral seriousness and a strong sense of public service is not only surplus to requirements but is actually something to be avoided. As it happens I believe you do genuinely feel this way - which illustrates very well the point I'm making. But I'd ask you to think seriously about it and if possible - with no pressure from me to admit it - realize that you are part of the problem.
I'm happy with sticking with saying that politicians who bang on about "morals", "moral majority", "moral seriousness" etc are the problem.
As for "public service" it blinds people into dogmatically thinking that what they're doing is right, because its part of the "service".
Keep your morals to yourself. Keep your public service to yourself. Politics should be about us making choices depending upon our own morals thank you. Politics should be about the public choosing what kind of service we want.
Not banging on about honesty and integrity. Just demonstrating some. It's important and ought to be a low bar.
Demand a little more, Philip. Politics is not like running a supermarket.
Integrity like "pretty straight kind of guy" Blair?
Where's this "bar" of yours set?
Blair followed a familiar template - pretending to be lilywhite. Johnson is a much more recent phenomenon - the ironic marketing of transgression.
He's making the point that cases will inevitably rise as we unlock but that we have to accept it and carry on - isn't that exactly what you've been saying?
Boris Johnson has warned that coronavirus infections will rise as lockdown eases, but said there is no reason to change the proposed roadmap to end restrictions.
"People, I don't think, appreciate that it's the lockdown that has been overwhelmingly important in delivering this improvement," Mr Johnson said. "Of course the vaccination programme has helped, but the bulk of work in reducing disease has been done by the lockdown.
"So, as we unlock, the result will inevitably be that we will see more infection, sadly we will see more hospitalisation and deaths. People have just got to understand that."
The messaging is stupid though – did you watch the clip? He needs to engage brain before opening mouth.
It is the messaging you inevitable end up with, though, if you believe that lock downs essentially control COVID like a themostat controls the heating.
On topic (very slightly) I see that Greensill like a lot of affluent Aussies has the marginally weird habit of wearing RM Williams boots as formal wear - another brand besmirched At least BJ is a shit clothes black hole.
it's impossible for this particular government to get a grip on this particular problem - rock bottom standards in public life - because it is led by an individual whose (very powerful) political brand is built upon encouraging the perception that such matters are "dull" and even a teeny bit "party pooping". So long as the public keep buying into the brand, keep rewarding its owner with their votes, there is no chance whatsoever of any progress on this. It will have to wait until there's a change at the top. Not any old change either. A big change.
BoZo's brand is built on cheating and lies.
The public are apparently fully supportive of that.
Boris has yet to prove himself against an opponent who is not electoral poison - like Livingstone ans Corbyn
Is what people who say he is a "winner" forget. I canvassed for him for mayor, god help me, and in many neighbourhoods the conversation went: "Ken Livingstone". Same for the Corbyn GE.
Ken Livingstone managed to win in the first place even without the advantage of a party machine behind him. He clearly didn't start out as electoral poison.
Perhaps Johnson's electoral strength is such that he makes his opponents look like complete no-hopers?
Yep. Boris Johnson is more asset than liability. I think people are kidding themselves if they believe he keeps passing electoral tests only (or even mainly) because of poor opposition. I want Labour to win enough seats at the next election to put Starmer into number 10 and I'll feel more hopeful of that against any opponent bar Johnson. Unfortunately (although not for my betting) I see little chance of a change of Con leader before the GE.
I don't know.
When the fall comes it will be swift and brutal. Whether that comes before the next GE is open for debate. In some respects Johnson having to carry the can for the economic aftermath of his Covid spending, both reasonable and profligate might be poetic justice. I am now expecting a spending led economic boom, before everyone runs out of borrowed money, and the inevitable bust.
In terms of legacy — it took a good 10-20 years before the true consequences of Devolution have only started to become clear.
We will have to wait the same time period before the true consequences of Brexit start to become clear.
Labour introduced the Minimum Wage but it was the Conservatives who ran with it with the "National Living Wage" etc. Perhaps in 10 years it will be Labour pushing "Brexit" to a new level.
There's so many unknowns.
Blame the consequences of devolution on the Blair years if you want. Devolution worked reasonably well (NI excepted for traditional reasons) until Johnson came in with his boots on.
Oh cut the crap.
It worked so well that Scotland has had a dominant nationalist majority in Holyrood since long before Johnson came in.
Asymmetric devolution has made a pigs breakfast of the union for years now. There is no solution to the WLQ, Holyrood has power but no responsibility so can just blame Westminster for everything bad, there's no English devolution and so on and so forth. Its a mess and not one of Johnson's making - not one that anybody has a solution for because there is no solution.
No matter what you do England will forever be worth more than 80% of MPs because simply England outweighs all nations tremendously. Its not a stable situation for a federal structure.
The WLQ predates Holyrood by 20+ years.
There needs to be an English Parliament.
All four Parliaments then need to raise most of their own money.
Agreed. Really the only thing which will save 'the union' will be devo max, and the removing of this tension.
but devomax doesn't work when one country will always overwhelm the other 3 as it has 80% of the population so will always end up with 80% of the vote.
I like @Luckyguy1983 's suggestion to give the proportional equivalent of one vote to each devolved nation and one vote to the "UK" parliament. That means that England only ever needs the support of one other home nation to railroad anything through, reflecting its relative size and importance.
I think that's a terrible idea.
One person, one vote. If that means England can get its way then so be it, England is over 80% of the union and that's democracy.
If the other nations don't want England to be able to act unilaterally, then they need to be independent of England. Its perfectly viable.
Let's not pretend you don't have a vested interest here. You want English independence so will poo poo any other suggestion to the contrary.
Federalism requires compromise if the Union is to be preserved. You may not want the Union to be preserved but plenty of people do.
That works with good faith partners. The SNP are not good faith partners. They want an end to the union.
Its like teaming up with someone who says 'I want to ditch you and will do everything I can to ditch you, and whilst we're together i'm going to keep slagging you off', that's not the basis for a lasting relationship.
Aye, poor, old good faith partners BJ and the Tory party being let down by other folk..
I'm talking about a fundamental basis of support for the union continuing. The truth isn't as clear-cut as that true, but the point remains.
For the last 20+ years part of the fundamental basis of of support for the union continuing is HMG accepting and supporting devolution. BJ & co have changed that, and as ye sow so shall ye reap.
A push for independence is not devolution it's separatism. It's the SNP which aren't interested in devolution as the endgame.
As I have said repeatedly (and no doubt tediously), if not for Brexit for which Scotland voted more enthusiastically against than England for, the SNP's main ambition would be aiming for the biggest party in the next Holyrood election, support for indy would be a steady 40-45% and Devolution would be stumbling along in it's incremental 'here's a wee bit more power' way. More sowing and reaping I'm afraid.
But the UK would be on life support with its energy ebbing away and little hope of a recovery to health. Bexit has precipitated a crisis, but it cannot be predicted at this time whether this crisis is a disaster or a necessary catharsis.
it's impossible for this particular government to get a grip on this particular problem - rock bottom standards in public life - because it is led by an individual whose (very powerful) political brand is built upon encouraging the perception that such matters are "dull" and even a teeny bit "party pooping". So long as the public keep buying into the brand, keep rewarding its owner with their votes, there is no chance whatsoever of any progress on this. It will have to wait until there's a change at the top. Not any old change either. A big change.
BoZo's brand is built on cheating and lies.
The public are apparently fully supportive of that.
My point put rather more baldly!
I can tbf see the appeal of some facets of the Boris Brand. The positivity. The light touch. The vivid language. Not everything about it is toxic. But what is toxic - very - is the idea that a moral compass and a sense of public service is for po-faced dullards who take themselves and life too seriously. And sadly this comes with the product because it's integral to it.
You can't go to the store and say, "I'll have a Boris but one WITH a moral compass and sense of public service please."
That's not on the shelves.
Well it is though.
"A sense of public service" is typically used as a "redeeming" feature for the absolutely shit Prime Ministers we have had: Theresa May, Gordon Brown
The better Prime Ministers we've had - Boris himself, Dave, Blair - had a void where a moral compass and a sense of public service was meant to be, but they were far, far better Prime Ministers.
No appetite for a debate on "best PMs" but I do find it depressing if you've concluded that moral seriousness and a strong sense of public service is not only surplus to requirements but is actually something to be avoided. As it happens I believe you do genuinely feel this way - which illustrates very well the point I'm making. But I'd ask you to think seriously about it and if possible - with no pressure from me to admit it - realize that you are part of the problem.
I'm happy with sticking with saying that politicians who bang on about "morals", "moral majority", "moral seriousness" etc are the problem.
As for "public service" it blinds people into dogmatically thinking that what they're doing is right, because its part of the "service".
Keep your morals to yourself. Keep your public service to yourself. Politics should be about us making choices depending upon our own morals thank you. Politics should be about the public choosing what kind of service we want.
Not banging on about honesty and integrity. Just demonstrating some. It's important and ought to be a low bar.
Demand a little more, Philip. Politics is not like running a supermarket.
Philip is quite happy for the PM to be a liar and a first class Cnut, in fact he sees this as admirable. Tells one a lot about Philip.
Well,knock me down with a feather. Ms Markle, according to the Daily Mirror, isn't coming to the funeral, "because she doesn't want to be the centre of attention". Risible! So speaks someone who has sought to be the centre of attention in everything she does !
She's right though. She would be the centre of attention. And that wouldn't be good.
Yes. But why does she feel the need to say that. She had a plausible excuse. She should have STFU.
But she has chosen to make the story about her instead
it's impossible for this particular government to get a grip on this particular problem - rock bottom standards in public life - because it is led by an individual whose (very powerful) political brand is built upon encouraging the perception that such matters are "dull" and even a teeny bit "party pooping". So long as the public keep buying into the brand, keep rewarding its owner with their votes, there is no chance whatsoever of any progress on this. It will have to wait until there's a change at the top. Not any old change either. A big change.
BoZo's brand is built on cheating and lies.
The public are apparently fully supportive of that.
My point put rather more baldly!
I can tbf see the appeal of some facets of the Boris Brand. The positivity. The light touch. The vivid language. Not everything about it is toxic. But what is toxic - very - is the idea that a moral compass and a sense of public service is for po-faced dullards who take themselves and life too seriously. And sadly this comes with the product because it's integral to it.
You can't go to the store and say, "I'll have a Boris but one WITH a moral compass and sense of public service please."
That's not on the shelves.
Well it is though.
"A sense of public service" is typically used as a "redeeming" feature for the absolutely shit Prime Ministers we have had: Theresa May, Gordon Brown
The better Prime Ministers we've had - Boris himself, Dave, Blair - had a void where a moral compass and a sense of public service was meant to be, but they were far, far better Prime Ministers.
No appetite for a debate on "best PMs" but I do find it depressing if you've concluded that moral seriousness and a strong sense of public service is not only surplus to requirements but is actually something to be avoided. As it happens I believe you do genuinely feel this way - which illustrates very well the point I'm making. But I'd ask you to think seriously about it and if possible - with no pressure from me to admit it - realize that you are part of the problem.
I'm happy with sticking with saying that politicians who bang on about "morals", "moral majority", "moral seriousness" etc are the problem.
As for "public service" it blinds people into dogmatically thinking that what they're doing is right, because its part of the "service".
Keep your morals to yourself. Keep your public service to yourself. Politics should be about us making choices depending upon our own morals thank you. Politics should be about the public choosing what kind of service we want.
Not banging on about honesty and integrity. Just demonstrating some. It's important and ought to be a low bar.
Demand a little more, Philip. Politics is not like running a supermarket.
Integrity like "pretty straight kind of guy" Blair?
Where's this "bar" of yours set?
Blair followed a familiar template - pretending to be lilywhite . Johnson is a much more recent phenomenon - the ironic marketing of transgression.
Stripped down to ‘I’m a guy’ with a shrug of the shoulders and a big, fat wink.
My current GP seems unable to book me a second dose here in Cumbria because he can't get me into the AccuX booking system - the one which sends you a text inviting you to book - despite me being registered with the practice and no longer with my old practice. The NHS helpline won't help as they're just using AZ vaccines and I can't book centrally as it says I'm not eligible having got my first dose through my previous GP in February, despite having transferred to my current GP in January.
Anyway I have now got my old GP in London to put me on the booking system. Got my invitation yesterday to book in London but there are no slots available.
So am checking three times day and have my bag packed for an urgent drive down to London to get my second Pfizer dose. I hope they really do have enough second doses and I'm not going to miss out.
Apparently a nearby surgery is getting a load of Pfizer doses shortly so I'm going to ring them to see if they'll let me have one. Unlikely but worth a shot.
It's all a teensy bit worrying......
Try dialling 119
I have. They're only doing AZ vaccines so won't / can't help.
Was going to go to the village pub for a lunch but it's fully booked.
Glad to hear that they're busy! Hope you can get a booking soon though. My hairdresser said the same, she's booked up for the next 3 weeks, not a single appointment available and she's raised her prices. I had to get my next appointment booked in yesterday to ensure I'd have a timely haircut!
Thanks, sure I'll be in a pub garden soon enough
It must be a big relief for the pub to have custom again
My dad drove round our area and all the pubs are still shut. But there’s one a bit further away that is open.
75% of pubs which are opening expect to lose money from opening in April. Those that are still shut - like Daughter's - are because the outdoor space is too small to trade profitably especially with current restrictions, which add to costs.
it's impossible for this particular government to get a grip on this particular problem - rock bottom standards in public life - because it is led by an individual whose (very powerful) political brand is built upon encouraging the perception that such matters are "dull" and even a teeny bit "party pooping". So long as the public keep buying into the brand, keep rewarding its owner with their votes, there is no chance whatsoever of any progress on this. It will have to wait until there's a change at the top. Not any old change either. A big change.
BoZo's brand is built on cheating and lies.
The public are apparently fully supportive of that.
My point put rather more baldly!
I can tbf see the appeal of some facets of the Boris Brand. The positivity. The light touch. The vivid language. Not everything about it is toxic. But what is toxic - very - is the idea that a moral compass and a sense of public service is for po-faced dullards who take themselves and life too seriously. And sadly this comes with the product because it's integral to it.
You can't go to the store and say, "I'll have a Boris but one WITH a moral compass and sense of public service please."
That's not on the shelves.
Well it is though.
"A sense of public service" is typically used as a "redeeming" feature for the absolutely shit Prime Ministers we have had: Theresa May, Gordon Brown
The better Prime Ministers we've had - Boris himself, Dave, Blair - had a void where a moral compass and a sense of public service was meant to be, but they were far, far better Prime Ministers.
No appetite for a debate on "best PMs" but I do find it depressing if you've concluded that moral seriousness and a strong sense of public service is not only surplus to requirements but is actually something to be avoided. As it happens I believe you do genuinely feel this way - which illustrates very well the point I'm making. But I'd ask you to think seriously about it and if possible - with no pressure from me to admit it - realize that you are part of the problem.
I'm happy with sticking with saying that politicians who bang on about "morals", "moral majority", "moral seriousness" etc are the problem.
As for "public service" it blinds people into dogmatically thinking that what they're doing is right, because its part of the "service".
Keep your morals to yourself. Keep your public service to yourself. Politics should be about us making choices depending upon our own morals thank you. Politics should be about the public choosing what kind of service we want.
Not banging on about honesty and integrity. Just demonstrating some. It's important and ought to be a low bar.
Demand a little more, Philip. Politics is not like running a supermarket.
Integrity like "pretty straight kind of guy" Blair?
Where's this "bar" of yours set?
Blair followed a familiar template - pretending to be lilywhite . Johnson is a much more recent phenomenon - the ironic marketing of transgression.
That is something I find refreshingly honest about Boris.
People who pretend to be lilywhite are dishonest shysters. People who own their transgressions are oddly more honest.
Since Boris was a student of Classics, there's a Classics religious parallel to this. The Christian religion that dominate in society portrays God as this supreme, infallible being. But in antiquity the pantheon of gods were all openly flawed. Greco-Roman gods were every bit as flawed as humans.
Why shouldn't our politicians be just as flawed as us "mere mortals"? At least then they're not covering it up.
it's impossible for this particular government to get a grip on this particular problem - rock bottom standards in public life - because it is led by an individual whose (very powerful) political brand is built upon encouraging the perception that such matters are "dull" and even a teeny bit "party pooping". So long as the public keep buying into the brand, keep rewarding its owner with their votes, there is no chance whatsoever of any progress on this. It will have to wait until there's a change at the top. Not any old change either. A big change.
BoZo's brand is built on cheating and lies.
The public are apparently fully supportive of that.
My point put rather more baldly!
I can tbf see the appeal of some facets of the Boris Brand. The positivity. The light touch. The vivid language. Not everything about it is toxic. But what is toxic - very - is the idea that a moral compass and a sense of public service is for po-faced dullards who take themselves and life too seriously. And sadly this comes with the product because it's integral to it.
You can't go to the store and say, "I'll have a Boris but one WITH a moral compass and sense of public service please."
That's not on the shelves.
Well it is though.
"A sense of public service" is typically used as a "redeeming" feature for the absolutely shit Prime Ministers we have had: Theresa May, Gordon Brown
The better Prime Ministers we've had - Boris himself, Dave, Blair - had a void where a moral compass and a sense of public service was meant to be, but they were far, far better Prime Ministers.
No appetite for a debate on "best PMs" but I do find it depressing if you've concluded that moral seriousness and a strong sense of public service is not only surplus to requirements but is actually something to be avoided. As it happens I believe you do genuinely feel this way - which illustrates very well the point I'm making. But I'd ask you to think seriously about it and if possible - with no pressure from me to admit it - realize that you are part of the problem.
I'm happy with sticking with saying that politicians who bang on about "morals", "moral majority", "moral seriousness" etc are the problem.
As for "public service" it blinds people into dogmatically thinking that what they're doing is right, because its part of the "service".
Keep your morals to yourself. Keep your public service to yourself. Politics should be about us making choices depending upon our own morals thank you. Politics should be about the public choosing what kind of service we want.
Not banging on about honesty and integrity. Just demonstrating some. It's important and ought to be a low bar.
Demand a little more, Philip. Politics is not like running a supermarket.
Integrity like "pretty straight kind of guy" Blair?
Where's this "bar" of yours set?
Like all such bars it finds its level pretty much directly between the main political parties.
it's impossible for this particular government to get a grip on this particular problem - rock bottom standards in public life - because it is led by an individual whose (very powerful) political brand is built upon encouraging the perception that such matters are "dull" and even a teeny bit "party pooping". So long as the public keep buying into the brand, keep rewarding its owner with their votes, there is no chance whatsoever of any progress on this. It will have to wait until there's a change at the top. Not any old change either. A big change.
@kinabalu Do you really think the current Government has rock bottom standards - they literally could not get any worse?
In the past we have seen child abuse by for example Cyril Smith. We have seen financial misappropriation like cash for questions or cash for honours. We have seen government critics die in mysterious circumstances or David Kelly, and we have seen outright fraud including jail time for some parliamentarians over expenses.
Is there are logical reason to think we have now reached some sort of nadir where all these are superceded. Or do you just not like Boris Johnson?
There's much modern political history to go through so of course one can pick out some nasties. But as to your question, is this rock bottom? I'd say it is in the sense that we haven't been lower (in this area). But it probably isn't if we project forwards since I'd expect the next move to be down not up (for the reasons I gave, the man in charge). Who, yes you're right, I have not really taken to. Wish he'd stayed in tv and journalism.
In terms of legacy — it took a good 10-20 years before the true consequences of Devolution have only started to become clear.
We will have to wait the same time period before the true consequences of Brexit start to become clear.
Labour introduced the Minimum Wage but it was the Conservatives who ran with it with the "National Living Wage" etc. Perhaps in 10 years it will be Labour pushing "Brexit" to a new level.
There's so many unknowns.
Blame the consequences of devolution on the Blair years if you want. Devolution worked reasonably well (NI excepted for traditional reasons) until Johnson came in with his boots on.
Oh cut the crap.
It worked so well that Scotland has had a dominant nationalist majority in Holyrood since long before Johnson came in.
Asymmetric devolution has made a pigs breakfast of the union for years now. There is no solution to the WLQ, Holyrood has power but no responsibility so can just blame Westminster for everything bad, there's no English devolution and so on and so forth. Its a mess and not one of Johnson's making - not one that anybody has a solution for because there is no solution.
No matter what you do England will forever be worth more than 80% of MPs because simply England outweighs all nations tremendously. Its not a stable situation for a federal structure.
The WLQ predates Holyrood by 20+ years.
There needs to be an English Parliament.
All four Parliaments then need to raise most of their own money.
Agreed. Really the only thing which will save 'the union' will be devo max, and the removing of this tension.
but devomax doesn't work when one country will always overwhelm the other 3 as it has 80% of the population so will always end up with 80% of the vote.
I like @Luckyguy1983 's suggestion to give the proportional equivalent of one vote to each devolved nation and one vote to the "UK" parliament. That means that England only ever needs the support of one other home nation to railroad anything through, reflecting its relative size and importance.
I think that's a terrible idea.
One person, one vote. If that means England can get its way then so be it, England is over 80% of the union and that's democracy.
If the other nations don't want England to be able to act unilaterally, then they need to be independent of England. Its perfectly viable.
I think the problem is the idea of England as a monolith. If you had devolution to English regions then you would be able to see the differences within England between the South-East and the North-West.
There seems quite a strong feeling within parts of England for decisions to be devolved away from London.
If the largest constituent part of the UK is Greater London, then it's much harder for Scottish Nationalists to create a grievance about being bullied by a colonialist England.
Actually, if England is divided into regions, it can always outvote the other home nations easily, and this is going to result in far more grievance amongst the home nations, because it enshrines English dominance based on population in exactly the same way that WM does currently.
it's impossible for this particular government to get a grip on this particular problem - rock bottom standards in public life - because it is led by an individual whose (very powerful) political brand is built upon encouraging the perception that such matters are "dull" and even a teeny bit "party pooping". So long as the public keep buying into the brand, keep rewarding its owner with their votes, there is no chance whatsoever of any progress on this. It will have to wait until there's a change at the top. Not any old change either. A big change.
BoZo's brand is built on cheating and lies.
The public are apparently fully supportive of that.
My point put rather more baldly!
I can tbf see the appeal of some facets of the Boris Brand. The positivity. The light touch. The vivid language. Not everything about it is toxic. But what is toxic - very - is the idea that a moral compass and a sense of public service is for po-faced dullards who take themselves and life too seriously. And sadly this comes with the product because it's integral to it.
You can't go to the store and say, "I'll have a Boris but one WITH a moral compass and sense of public service please."
That's not on the shelves.
Well it is though.
"A sense of public service" is typically used as a "redeeming" feature for the absolutely shit Prime Ministers we have had: Theresa May, Gordon Brown
The better Prime Ministers we've had - Boris himself, Dave, Blair - had a void where a moral compass and a sense of public service was meant to be, but they were far, far better Prime Ministers.
No appetite for a debate on "best PMs" but I do find it depressing if you've concluded that moral seriousness and a strong sense of public service is not only surplus to requirements but is actually something to be avoided. As it happens I believe you do genuinely feel this way - which illustrates very well the point I'm making. But I'd ask you to think seriously about it and if possible - with no pressure from me to admit it - realize that you are part of the problem.
I'm happy with sticking with saying that politicians who bang on about "morals", "moral majority", "moral seriousness" etc are the problem.
As for "public service" it blinds people into dogmatically thinking that what they're doing is right, because its part of the "service".
Keep your morals to yourself. Keep your public service to yourself. Politics should be about us making choices depending upon our own morals thank you. Politics should be about the public choosing what kind of service we want.
Not banging on about honesty and integrity. Just demonstrating some. It's important and ought to be a low bar.
Demand a little more, Philip. Politics is not like running a supermarket.
Philip is quite happy for the PM to be a liar and a first class Cnut, in fact he sees this as admirable. Tells one a lot about Philip.
The irony is that Boris would quite happy dump all his current followers down a well, if it was in Boris's short-term interest. We know this because it's what he's always done.
He's making the point that cases will inevitably rise as we unlock but that we have to accept it and carry on - isn't that exactly what you've been saying?
Boris Johnson has warned that coronavirus infections will rise as lockdown eases, but said there is no reason to change the proposed roadmap to end restrictions.
"People, I don't think, appreciate that it's the lockdown that has been overwhelmingly important in delivering this improvement," Mr Johnson said. "Of course the vaccination programme has helped, but the bulk of work in reducing disease has been done by the lockdown.
"So, as we unlock, the result will inevitably be that we will see more infection, sadly we will see more hospitalisation and deaths. People have just got to understand that."
This is hospitalisation R
Anyone want to bet that it
- goes up - stays the same - goes down
from this point on.
But when Boris says 'more' does he means the rate goes up (unlikely) or the cumulative total goes up (certain). I read his words to mean the latter.
At an R of 0.8, just about any change will put us back above 1.. Which means an increase.
Although, non-intuitively, changes will have a lesser effect now than they would have done a couple of months ago, and will have ever-decreasing effects going forwards.
If we're at an R of 0.8 now, we'd quite possibly be about twice that without the current levels of antibodies from infections and vaccinations (vaccination and acquired having a suppressive effect of about a factor of 2). So something that would have an effect of adding 0.3-0.4 (and taking us to around 2.0 without any immunity) would still keep us below(ish) 1.0
That is, the increase to R is dampened significantly. And every week, that suppressive effect is slowly increasing.,
it's impossible for this particular government to get a grip on this particular problem - rock bottom standards in public life - because it is led by an individual whose (very powerful) political brand is built upon encouraging the perception that such matters are "dull" and even a teeny bit "party pooping". So long as the public keep buying into the brand, keep rewarding its owner with their votes, there is no chance whatsoever of any progress on this. It will have to wait until there's a change at the top. Not any old change either. A big change.
BoZo's brand is built on cheating and lies.
The public are apparently fully supportive of that.
My point put rather more baldly!
I can tbf see the appeal of some facets of the Boris Brand. The positivity. The light touch. The vivid language. Not everything about it is toxic. But what is toxic - very - is the idea that a moral compass and a sense of public service is for po-faced dullards who take themselves and life too seriously. And sadly this comes with the product because it's integral to it.
You can't go to the store and say, "I'll have a Boris but one WITH a moral compass and sense of public service please."
That's not on the shelves.
Well it is though.
"A sense of public service" is typically used as a "redeeming" feature for the absolutely shit Prime Ministers we have had: Theresa May, Gordon Brown
The better Prime Ministers we've had - Boris himself, Dave, Blair - had a void where a moral compass and a sense of public service was meant to be, but they were far, far better Prime Ministers.
No appetite for a debate on "best PMs" but I do find it depressing if you've concluded that moral seriousness and a strong sense of public service is not only surplus to requirements but is actually something to be avoided. As it happens I believe you do genuinely feel this way - which illustrates very well the point I'm making. But I'd ask you to think seriously about it and if possible - with no pressure from me to admit it - realize that you are part of the problem.
I'm happy with sticking with saying that politicians who bang on about "morals", "moral majority", "moral seriousness" etc are the problem.
As for "public service" it blinds people into dogmatically thinking that what they're doing is right, because its part of the "service".
Keep your morals to yourself. Keep your public service to yourself. Politics should be about us making choices depending upon our own morals thank you. Politics should be about the public choosing what kind of service we want.
Not banging on about honesty and integrity. Just demonstrating some. It's important and ought to be a low bar.
Demand a little more, Philip. Politics is not like running a supermarket.
Integrity like "pretty straight kind of guy" Blair?
Where's this "bar" of yours set?
Blair followed a familiar template - pretending to be lilywhite. Johnson is a much more recent phenomenon - the ironic marketing of transgression.
I think the epithet you're looking for is 'Bakhtinian'. And it's not that new - Alcibiades did quite well out of it.
If we eliminate every medicine that has a 1 in 1,000,000 chance of severe side effects or death we will soon have no medicine at all.
It depends on whether those 6 people were all in the same demographic category. If they were all women under 30 then it's more like 1/100k and the US is also in the same invidious position as us where we're able to pick and choose our vaccines.
The biggest loser from this is the EU who are very dependent on this for their summer targets for "full vaccination". It would be difficult for the same countries restricting AZ use to older people to also not do it for J&J.
Okay but even at 1 in 100,000 you face the problem that if you keep eliminating vaccines to vaccinate the young you make it much harder to end the pandemic. Vaccines aren't perfect and COVID-19 can be seriously debilitating even if you don't die. Also more cases means more infections, which means more mutation, maybe whilst we are all messing around rejecting vaccines a mutation will crop up that means COVID-19 does seriously affect the young.
In terms of legacy — it took a good 10-20 years before the true consequences of Devolution have only started to become clear.
We will have to wait the same time period before the true consequences of Brexit start to become clear.
Labour introduced the Minimum Wage but it was the Conservatives who ran with it with the "National Living Wage" etc. Perhaps in 10 years it will be Labour pushing "Brexit" to a new level.
There's so many unknowns.
Blame the consequences of devolution on the Blair years if you want. Devolution worked reasonably well (NI excepted for traditional reasons) until Johnson came in with his boots on.
Oh cut the crap.
It worked so well that Scotland has had a dominant nationalist majority in Holyrood since long before Johnson came in.
Asymmetric devolution has made a pigs breakfast of the union for years now. There is no solution to the WLQ, Holyrood has power but no responsibility so can just blame Westminster for everything bad, there's no English devolution and so on and so forth. Its a mess and not one of Johnson's making - not one that anybody has a solution for because there is no solution.
No matter what you do England will forever be worth more than 80% of MPs because simply England outweighs all nations tremendously. Its not a stable situation for a federal structure.
The WLQ predates Holyrood by 20+ years.
There needs to be an English Parliament.
All four Parliaments then need to raise most of their own money.
Agreed. Really the only thing which will save 'the union' will be devo max, and the removing of this tension.
but devomax doesn't work when one country will always overwhelm the other 3 as it has 80% of the population so will always end up with 80% of the vote.
I like @Luckyguy1983 's suggestion to give the proportional equivalent of one vote to each devolved nation and one vote to the "UK" parliament. That means that England only ever needs the support of one other home nation to railroad anything through, reflecting its relative size and importance.
I think that's a terrible idea.
One person, one vote. If that means England can get its way then so be it, England is over 80% of the union and that's democracy.
If the other nations don't want England to be able to act unilaterally, then they need to be independent of England. Its perfectly viable.
I think the problem is the idea of England as a monolith. If you had devolution to English regions then you would be able to see the differences within England between the South-East and the North-West.
There seems quite a strong feeling within parts of England for decisions to be devolved away from London.
If the largest constituent part of the UK is Greater London, then it's much harder for Scottish Nationalists to create a grievance about being bullied by a colonialist England.
Actually, if England is divided into regions, it can always outvote the other home nations easily, and this is going to result in far more grievance amongst the home nations, because it enshrines English dominance based on population in exactly the same way that WM does currently.
But you would at least have the situation where the Midlands, North and Scotland could vote for something they wanted to the extent they got 50% of the vote.
He's making the point that cases will inevitably rise as we unlock but that we have to accept it and carry on - isn't that exactly what you've been saying?
Boris Johnson has warned that coronavirus infections will rise as lockdown eases, but said there is no reason to change the proposed roadmap to end restrictions.
"People, I don't think, appreciate that it's the lockdown that has been overwhelmingly important in delivering this improvement," Mr Johnson said. "Of course the vaccination programme has helped, but the bulk of work in reducing disease has been done by the lockdown.
"So, as we unlock, the result will inevitably be that we will see more infection, sadly we will see more hospitalisation and deaths. People have just got to understand that."
The messaging is stupid though – did you watch the clip? He needs to engage brain before opening mouth.
I'm just going by his direct quotes. He's doing what you want - take yes for an answer!
Is there ever a day where you drop the partisan bullshit and look at the world with mist-free eyes?
The messaging sucks. If you can't see that I suggest a new pair of glasses.
it's impossible for this particular government to get a grip on this particular problem - rock bottom standards in public life - because it is led by an individual whose (very powerful) political brand is built upon encouraging the perception that such matters are "dull" and even a teeny bit "party pooping". So long as the public keep buying into the brand, keep rewarding its owner with their votes, there is no chance whatsoever of any progress on this. It will have to wait until there's a change at the top. Not any old change either. A big change.
BoZo's brand is built on cheating and lies.
The public are apparently fully supportive of that.
My point put rather more baldly!
I can tbf see the appeal of some facets of the Boris Brand. The positivity. The light touch. The vivid language. Not everything about it is toxic. But what is toxic - very - is the idea that a moral compass and a sense of public service is for po-faced dullards who take themselves and life too seriously. And sadly this comes with the product because it's integral to it.
You can't go to the store and say, "I'll have a Boris but one WITH a moral compass and sense of public service please."
That's not on the shelves.
Well it is though.
"A sense of public service" is typically used as a "redeeming" feature for the absolutely shit Prime Ministers we have had: Theresa May, Gordon Brown
The better Prime Ministers we've had - Boris himself, Dave, Blair - had a void where a moral compass and a sense of public service was meant to be, but they were far, far better Prime Ministers.
No appetite for a debate on "best PMs" but I do find it depressing if you've concluded that moral seriousness and a strong sense of public service is not only surplus to requirements but is actually something to be avoided. As it happens I believe you do genuinely feel this way - which illustrates very well the point I'm making. But I'd ask you to think seriously about it and if possible - with no pressure from me to admit it - realize that you are part of the problem.
I'm happy with sticking with saying that politicians who bang on about "morals", "moral majority", "moral seriousness" etc are the problem.
As for "public service" it blinds people into dogmatically thinking that what they're doing is right, because its part of the "service".
Keep your morals to yourself. Keep your public service to yourself. Politics should be about us making choices depending upon our own morals thank you. Politics should be about the public choosing what kind of service we want.
Not banging on about honesty and integrity. Just demonstrating some. It's important and ought to be a low bar.
Demand a little more, Philip. Politics is not like running a supermarket.
Philip is quite happy for the PM to be a liar and a first class Cnut, in fact he sees this as admirable. Tells one a lot about Philip.
The irony is that Boris would quite happy dump all his current followers down a well, if it was in Boris's short-term interest. We know this because it's what he's always done.
And voters will be happy to dump Boris the moment he's served our interests and we find something that serves our interests better.
That's democracy. People who believe that their favoured politicians are "lilywhite" or have "integrity" are being taken for a fool.
I know Boris isn't. I'm no fool, I just think Boris serves my interests politically. Eyes wide open as to it all.
it's impossible for this particular government to get a grip on this particular problem - rock bottom standards in public life - because it is led by an individual whose (very powerful) political brand is built upon encouraging the perception that such matters are "dull" and even a teeny bit "party pooping". So long as the public keep buying into the brand, keep rewarding its owner with their votes, there is no chance whatsoever of any progress on this. It will have to wait until there's a change at the top. Not any old change either. A big change.
BoZo's brand is built on cheating and lies.
The public are apparently fully supportive of that.
My point put rather more baldly!
I can tbf see the appeal of some facets of the Boris Brand. The positivity. The light touch. The vivid language. Not everything about it is toxic. But what is toxic - very - is the idea that a moral compass and a sense of public service is for po-faced dullards who take themselves and life too seriously. And sadly this comes with the product because it's integral to it.
You can't go to the store and say, "I'll have a Boris but one WITH a moral compass and sense of public service please."
That's not on the shelves.
Well it is though.
"A sense of public service" is typically used as a "redeeming" feature for the absolutely shit Prime Ministers we have had: Theresa May, Gordon Brown
The better Prime Ministers we've had - Boris himself, Dave, Blair - had a void where a moral compass and a sense of public service was meant to be, but they were far, far better Prime Ministers.
No appetite for a debate on "best PMs" but I do find it depressing if you've concluded that moral seriousness and a strong sense of public service is not only surplus to requirements but is actually something to be avoided. As it happens I believe you do genuinely feel this way - which illustrates very well the point I'm making. But I'd ask you to think seriously about it and if possible - with no pressure from me to admit it - realize that you are part of the problem.
I'm happy with sticking with saying that politicians who bang on about "morals", "moral majority", "moral seriousness" etc are the problem.
As for "public service" it blinds people into dogmatically thinking that what they're doing is right, because its part of the "service".
Keep your morals to yourself. Keep your public service to yourself. Politics should be about us making choices depending upon our own morals thank you. Politics should be about the public choosing what kind of service we want.
Not banging on about honesty and integrity. Just demonstrating some. It's important and ought to be a low bar.
Demand a little more, Philip. Politics is not like running a supermarket.
Integrity like "pretty straight kind of guy" Blair?
Where's this "bar" of yours set?
Blair followed a familiar template - pretending to be lilywhite . Johnson is a much more recent phenomenon - the ironic marketing of transgression.
That is something I find refreshingly honest about Boris.
People who pretend to be lilywhite are dishonest shysters. People who own their transgressions are oddly more honest.
Since Boris was a student of Classics, there's a Classics religious parallel to this. The Christian religion that dominate in society portrays God as this supreme, infallible being. But in antiquity the pantheon of gods were all openly flawed. Greco-Roman gods were every bit as flawed as humans.
Why shouldn't our politicians be just as flawed as us "mere mortals"? At least then they're not covering it up.
The gods were flawed, but if Pericles presented himself as Johnson has he wouldn't have lasted long. Our democratic governing assumptions precede Judeo-Christian morality, and they rely on a level of systemic trust, which starts to unravel very quickly if publicly flouting it becomes a virtue.
it's impossible for this particular government to get a grip on this particular problem - rock bottom standards in public life - because it is led by an individual whose (very powerful) political brand is built upon encouraging the perception that such matters are "dull" and even a teeny bit "party pooping". So long as the public keep buying into the brand, keep rewarding its owner with their votes, there is no chance whatsoever of any progress on this. It will have to wait until there's a change at the top. Not any old change either. A big change.
BoZo's brand is built on cheating and lies.
The public are apparently fully supportive of that.
My point put rather more baldly!
I can tbf see the appeal of some facets of the Boris Brand. The positivity. The light touch. The vivid language. Not everything about it is toxic. But what is toxic - very - is the idea that a moral compass and a sense of public service is for po-faced dullards who take themselves and life too seriously. And sadly this comes with the product because it's integral to it.
You can't go to the store and say, "I'll have a Boris but one WITH a moral compass and sense of public service please."
That's not on the shelves.
The trickier question is whether such a thing can exist.
If you take the last couple of winning PMs, Blair and Cameron, they both started projecting that sunny optimism. 1992 Major had a lovely smile. But the sunshine gradually faded as reality hit, compromises were made with reality and the effect of getting things wrong hit home.
The Boris difference is to just ignore all that, so that the sunshine continues. My working assumption thus far has been that nobody can be that hollow indefinitely. And that the fall of Boris will be a sudden shattering rather than an accumulation of dents and scratches. Maybe ten years time, maybe ten minutes.
But maybe Boris has hit on disconnecting his moral compass as a winning formula. There's a hideous logic there, and he's not unique in doing it.
Yes, great point, depressing point. If you are sufficiently flamboyant in your disregard for "norms", you can maybe pull of that trick whereby people judge you differently. They don't have the same expectations of you as they do of others. You get a pass. Trump did this. It's a terrible thing and it's why despite being a very firm leftie, I find this aspect of politics - culture and standards - more important than policy. Policy is the easy bit.
It's one reason I can't get too worked up about the whole 'why do we call him Boris thing'. It is an advantage now, for sure, but come the point he finally Ratners himself, he'll be more Ratnered as Boris than he will as Johnson.
No need to get worked up about it - or indeed start calling him "Johnson" if this feels phony to you. All I've ever asked is that people recognize that the faux intimacy is an integral part of his brand and what a great deal it's worth to him.
And, yes, I take your point about the possibility of negative blowback if it all goes pear for him.
He's making the point that cases will inevitably rise as we unlock but that we have to accept it and carry on - isn't that exactly what you've been saying?
Boris Johnson has warned that coronavirus infections will rise as lockdown eases, but said there is no reason to change the proposed roadmap to end restrictions.
"People, I don't think, appreciate that it's the lockdown that has been overwhelmingly important in delivering this improvement," Mr Johnson said. "Of course the vaccination programme has helped, but the bulk of work in reducing disease has been done by the lockdown.
"So, as we unlock, the result will inevitably be that we will see more infection, sadly we will see more hospitalisation and deaths. People have just got to understand that."
This is hospitalisation R
Anyone want to bet that it
- goes up - stays the same - goes down
from this point on.
But when Boris says 'more' does he means the rate goes up (unlikely) or the cumulative total goes up (certain). I read his words to mean the latter.
At an R of 0.8, just about any change will put us back above 1.. Which means an increase.
Although, non-intuitively, changes will have a lesser effect now than they would have done a couple of months ago, and will have ever-decreasing effects going forwards.
If we're at an R of 0.8 now, we'd quite possibly be about twice that without the current levels of antibodies from infections and vaccinations (vaccination and acquired having a suppressive effect of about a factor of 2). So something that would have an effect of adding 0.3-0.4 (and taking us to around 2.0 without any immunity) would still keep us below(ish) 1.0
That is, the increase to R is dampened significantly. And every week, that suppressive effect is slowly increasing.,
That is what we all hope. Including, I think, the government and their advisors.
The lockdown did the heavy lifting, the vaccinations added to it, and will hopefully sustain the lower levels.
The ugly side of what you suggest is that without the vaccinations, with the new variants, R would be above 1. I say ugly, because that is the position that is unrolling in a number of other countries.....
In terms of legacy — it took a good 10-20 years before the true consequences of Devolution have only started to become clear.
We will have to wait the same time period before the true consequences of Brexit start to become clear.
Labour introduced the Minimum Wage but it was the Conservatives who ran with it with the "National Living Wage" etc. Perhaps in 10 years it will be Labour pushing "Brexit" to a new level.
There's so many unknowns.
Blame the consequences of devolution on the Blair years if you want. Devolution worked reasonably well (NI excepted for traditional reasons) until Johnson came in with his boots on.
Oh cut the crap.
It worked so well that Scotland has had a dominant nationalist majority in Holyrood since long before Johnson came in.
Asymmetric devolution has made a pigs breakfast of the union for years now. There is no solution to the WLQ, Holyrood has power but no responsibility so can just blame Westminster for everything bad, there's no English devolution and so on and so forth. Its a mess and not one of Johnson's making - not one that anybody has a solution for because there is no solution.
No matter what you do England will forever be worth more than 80% of MPs because simply England outweighs all nations tremendously. Its not a stable situation for a federal structure.
The WLQ predates Holyrood by 20+ years.
There needs to be an English Parliament.
All four Parliaments then need to raise most of their own money.
Agreed. Really the only thing which will save 'the union' will be devo max, and the removing of this tension.
but devomax doesn't work when one country will always overwhelm the other 3 as it has 80% of the population so will always end up with 80% of the vote.
I like @Luckyguy1983 's suggestion to give the proportional equivalent of one vote to each devolved nation and one vote to the "UK" parliament. That means that England only ever needs the support of one other home nation to railroad anything through, reflecting its relative size and importance.
I think that's a terrible idea.
One person, one vote. If that means England can get its way then so be it, England is over 80% of the union and that's democracy.
If the other nations don't want England to be able to act unilaterally, then they need to be independent of England. Its perfectly viable.
Let's not pretend you don't have a vested interest here. You want English independence so will poo poo any other suggestion to the contrary.
Federalism requires compromise if the Union is to be preserved. You may not want the Union to be preserved but plenty of people do.
That works with good faith partners. The SNP are not good faith partners. They want an end to the union.
Its like teaming up with someone who says 'I want to ditch you and will do everything I can to ditch you, and whilst we're together i'm going to keep slagging you off', that's not the basis for a lasting relationship.
Aye, poor, old good faith partners BJ and the Tory party being let down by other folk..
I'm talking about a fundamental basis of support for the union continuing. The truth isn't as clear-cut as that true, but the point remains.
For the last 20+ years part of the fundamental basis of of support for the union continuing is HMG accepting and supporting devolution. BJ & co have changed that, and as ye sow so shall ye reap.
A push for independence is not devolution it's separatism. It's the SNP which aren't interested in devolution as the endgame.
As I have said repeatedly (and no doubt tediously), if not for Brexit for which Scotland voted more enthusiastically against than England for, the SNP's main ambition would be aiming for the biggest party in the next Holyrood election, support for indy would be a steady 40-45% and Devolution would be stumbling along in it's incremental 'here's a wee bit more power' way. More sowing and reaping I'm afraid.
But the UK would be on life support with its energy ebbing away and little hope of a recovery to health. Bexit has precipitated a crisis, but it cannot be predicted at this time whether this crisis is a disaster or a necessary catharsis.
If you have any basic level of education in economics, history or indeed simple maths, then I´m afraid you certainly can predict the inevitable damage to the UK. In fact its already happening. Eventually the country will have to row back from the hard Brexit mess, the only question is how bad the mess will be before the national consensus, currently smashed by the hard right, can be reformed. In fact I expect that a few more of the inevitable Tory scandals will actually help to expedite that process.
He's making the point that cases will inevitably rise as we unlock but that we have to accept it and carry on - isn't that exactly what you've been saying?
Boris Johnson has warned that coronavirus infections will rise as lockdown eases, but said there is no reason to change the proposed roadmap to end restrictions.
"People, I don't think, appreciate that it's the lockdown that has been overwhelmingly important in delivering this improvement," Mr Johnson said. "Of course the vaccination programme has helped, but the bulk of work in reducing disease has been done by the lockdown.
"So, as we unlock, the result will inevitably be that we will see more infection, sadly we will see more hospitalisation and deaths. People have just got to understand that."
The messaging is stupid though – did you watch the clip? He needs to engage brain before opening mouth.
I'm just going by his direct quotes. He's doing what you want - take yes for an answer!
Is there ever a day where you drop the partisan bullshit and look at the world with mist-free eyes?
The messaging sucks. If you can't see that I suggest a new pair of glasses.
The only thing he needs to say is: GET YOUR JAB.
No he needs to do 2 separate things:-
1) Get Your Jab
2) Prepare people in case something appears that stops the jab working.
In terms of legacy — it took a good 10-20 years before the true consequences of Devolution have only started to become clear.
We will have to wait the same time period before the true consequences of Brexit start to become clear.
Labour introduced the Minimum Wage but it was the Conservatives who ran with it with the "National Living Wage" etc. Perhaps in 10 years it will be Labour pushing "Brexit" to a new level.
There's so many unknowns.
Blame the consequences of devolution on the Blair years if you want. Devolution worked reasonably well (NI excepted for traditional reasons) until Johnson came in with his boots on.
Oh cut the crap.
It worked so well that Scotland has had a dominant nationalist majority in Holyrood since long before Johnson came in.
Asymmetric devolution has made a pigs breakfast of the union for years now. There is no solution to the WLQ, Holyrood has power but no responsibility so can just blame Westminster for everything bad, there's no English devolution and so on and so forth. Its a mess and not one of Johnson's making - not one that anybody has a solution for because there is no solution.
No matter what you do England will forever be worth more than 80% of MPs because simply England outweighs all nations tremendously. Its not a stable situation for a federal structure.
The WLQ predates Holyrood by 20+ years.
There needs to be an English Parliament.
All four Parliaments then need to raise most of their own money.
Agreed. Really the only thing which will save 'the union' will be devo max, and the removing of this tension.
but devomax doesn't work when one country will always overwhelm the other 3 as it has 80% of the population so will always end up with 80% of the vote.
I like @Luckyguy1983 's suggestion to give the proportional equivalent of one vote to each devolved nation and one vote to the "UK" parliament. That means that England only ever needs the support of one other home nation to railroad anything through, reflecting its relative size and importance.
I think that's a terrible idea.
One person, one vote. If that means England can get its way then so be it, England is over 80% of the union and that's democracy.
If the other nations don't want England to be able to act unilaterally, then they need to be independent of England. Its perfectly viable.
I think the problem is the idea of England as a monolith. If you had devolution to English regions then you would be able to see the differences within England between the South-East and the North-West.
There seems quite a strong feeling within parts of England for decisions to be devolved away from London.
If the largest constituent part of the UK is Greater London, then it's much harder for Scottish Nationalists to create a grievance about being bullied by a colonialist England.
Actually, if England is divided into regions, it can always outvote the other home nations easily, and this is going to result in far more grievance amongst the home nations, because it enshrines English dominance based on population in exactly the same way that WM does currently.
But you would at least have the situation where the Midlands, North and Scotland could vote for something they wanted to the extent they got 50% of the vote.
Perhaps, but Scottish MPs could collabarate with their English colleagues do the same at the moment and get their way in the House of Commons. That's the theory, but it's far more difficult in practise, and doesn't stop anyone having a grievance.
In terms of legacy — it took a good 10-20 years before the true consequences of Devolution have only started to become clear.
We will have to wait the same time period before the true consequences of Brexit start to become clear.
Labour introduced the Minimum Wage but it was the Conservatives who ran with it with the "National Living Wage" etc. Perhaps in 10 years it will be Labour pushing "Brexit" to a new level.
There's so many unknowns.
Blame the consequences of devolution on the Blair years if you want. Devolution worked reasonably well (NI excepted for traditional reasons) until Johnson came in with his boots on.
Oh cut the crap.
It worked so well that Scotland has had a dominant nationalist majority in Holyrood since long before Johnson came in.
Asymmetric devolution has made a pigs breakfast of the union for years now. There is no solution to the WLQ, Holyrood has power but no responsibility so can just blame Westminster for everything bad, there's no English devolution and so on and so forth. Its a mess and not one of Johnson's making - not one that anybody has a solution for because there is no solution.
No matter what you do England will forever be worth more than 80% of MPs because simply England outweighs all nations tremendously. Its not a stable situation for a federal structure.
The WLQ predates Holyrood by 20+ years.
There needs to be an English Parliament.
All four Parliaments then need to raise most of their own money.
Agreed. Really the only thing which will save 'the union' will be devo max, and the removing of this tension.
but devomax doesn't work when one country will always overwhelm the other 3 as it has 80% of the population so will always end up with 80% of the vote.
I like @Luckyguy1983 's suggestion to give the proportional equivalent of one vote to each devolved nation and one vote to the "UK" parliament. That means that England only ever needs the support of one other home nation to railroad anything through, reflecting its relative size and importance.
I think that's a terrible idea.
One person, one vote. If that means England can get its way then so be it, England is over 80% of the union and that's democracy.
If the other nations don't want England to be able to act unilaterally, then they need to be independent of England. Its perfectly viable.
Let's not pretend you don't have a vested interest here. You want English independence so will poo poo any other suggestion to the contrary.
Federalism requires compromise if the Union is to be preserved. You may not want the Union to be preserved but plenty of people do.
That works with good faith partners. The SNP are not good faith partners. They want an end to the union.
Its like teaming up with someone who says 'I want to ditch you and will do everything I can to ditch you, and whilst we're together i'm going to keep slagging you off', that's not the basis for a lasting relationship.
Aye, poor, old good faith partners BJ and the Tory party being let down by other folk..
I'm talking about a fundamental basis of support for the union continuing. The truth isn't as clear-cut as that true, but the point remains.
For the last 20+ years part of the fundamental basis of of support for the union continuing is HMG accepting and supporting devolution. BJ & co have changed that, and as ye sow so shall ye reap.
A push for independence is not devolution it's separatism. It's the SNP which aren't interested in devolution as the endgame.
As I have said repeatedly (and no doubt tediously), if not for Brexit for which Scotland voted more enthusiastically against than England for, the SNP's main ambition would be aiming for the biggest party in the next Holyrood election, support for indy would be a steady 40-45% and Devolution would be stumbling along in it's incremental 'here's a wee bit more power' way. More sowing and reaping I'm afraid.
But the UK would be on life support with its energy ebbing away and little hope of a recovery to health. Bexit has precipitated a crisis, but it cannot be predicted at this time whether this crisis is a disaster or a necessary catharsis.
If you have any basic level of education in economics, history or indeed simple maths, then I´m afraid you certainly can predict the inevitable damage to the UK. In fact its already happening. Eventually the country will have to row back from the hard Brexit mess, the only question is how bad the mess will be before the national consensus, currently smashed by the hard right, can be reformed. In fact I expect that a few more of the inevitable Tory scandals will actually help to expedite that process.
An attack across 80 - 120 miles of sea, against a numerous and well-equipped military, defending its homeland, seems an extremely risky venture to me.
The Chinese strategy isn't invasion. It's gradual encirclement; through the 'The Great Wall of Sand' across the Spratlys and Paracels. One island at a time knowing the "West", in as much as that means anything anymore, won't do anything beyond harsh tweets. They'll do this while ferociously stoking internal dissent in Taiwan until sooner or later a tipping point will be reached.
A good point. We have also missed China's economic colonial takeover of East and Central Africa, while we were all worrying ourselves about MAGA, BREXIT and any other alphabet soup one cares to consider.
I'd have been delighted not to have spent any time worrying about MAGA and Brexit.
He's making the point that cases will inevitably rise as we unlock but that we have to accept it and carry on - isn't that exactly what you've been saying?
Boris Johnson has warned that coronavirus infections will rise as lockdown eases, but said there is no reason to change the proposed roadmap to end restrictions.
"People, I don't think, appreciate that it's the lockdown that has been overwhelmingly important in delivering this improvement," Mr Johnson said. "Of course the vaccination programme has helped, but the bulk of work in reducing disease has been done by the lockdown.
"So, as we unlock, the result will inevitably be that we will see more infection, sadly we will see more hospitalisation and deaths. People have just got to understand that."
The messaging is stupid though – did you watch the clip? He needs to engage brain before opening mouth.
I'm just going by his direct quotes. He's doing what you want - take yes for an answer!
Is there ever a day where you drop the partisan bullshit and look at the world with mist-free eyes?
The messaging sucks. If you can't see that I suggest a new pair of glasses.
The only thing he needs to say is: GET YOUR JAB.
Let's judge by the results, shall we? If you're right, his supposedly disastrous messaging will derail the vaccine programme and unlocking roadmap. If I'm right, it won't.
it's impossible for this particular government to get a grip on this particular problem - rock bottom standards in public life - because it is led by an individual whose (very powerful) political brand is built upon encouraging the perception that such matters are "dull" and even a teeny bit "party pooping". So long as the public keep buying into the brand, keep rewarding its owner with their votes, there is no chance whatsoever of any progress on this. It will have to wait until there's a change at the top. Not any old change either. A big change.
BoZo's brand is built on cheating and lies.
The public are apparently fully supportive of that.
My point put rather more baldly!
I can tbf see the appeal of some facets of the Boris Brand. The positivity. The light touch. The vivid language. Not everything about it is toxic. But what is toxic - very - is the idea that a moral compass and a sense of public service is for po-faced dullards who take themselves and life too seriously. And sadly this comes with the product because it's integral to it.
You can't go to the store and say, "I'll have a Boris but one WITH a moral compass and sense of public service please."
That's not on the shelves.
Well it is though.
"A sense of public service" is typically used as a "redeeming" feature for the absolutely shit Prime Ministers we have had: Theresa May, Gordon Brown
The better Prime Ministers we've had - Boris himself, Dave, Blair - had a void where a moral compass and a sense of public service was meant to be, but they were far, far better Prime Ministers.
No appetite for a debate on "best PMs" but I do find it depressing if you've concluded that moral seriousness and a strong sense of public service is not only surplus to requirements but is actually something to be avoided. As it happens I believe you do genuinely feel this way - which illustrates very well the point I'm making. But I'd ask you to think seriously about it and if possible - with no pressure from me to admit it - realize that you are part of the problem.
I'm happy with sticking with saying that politicians who bang on about "morals", "moral majority", "moral seriousness" etc are the problem.
As for "public service" it blinds people into dogmatically thinking that what they're doing is right, because its part of the "service".
Keep your morals to yourself. Keep your public service to yourself. Politics should be about us making choices depending upon our own morals thank you. Politics should be about the public choosing what kind of service we want.
Not banging on about honesty and integrity. Just demonstrating some. It's important and ought to be a low bar.
Demand a little more, Philip. Politics is not like running a supermarket.
Integrity like "pretty straight kind of guy" Blair?
Where's this "bar" of yours set?
Blair followed a familiar template - pretending to be lilywhite. Johnson is a much more recent phenomenon - the ironic marketing of transgression.
I think the epithet you're looking for is 'Bakhtinian'. And it's not that new - Alcibiades did quite well out of it.
Until he didn’t. I wonder with which mistress BJ will be holed up when his fate finally comes a-knocking?
it's impossible for this particular government to get a grip on this particular problem - rock bottom standards in public life - because it is led by an individual whose (very powerful) political brand is built upon encouraging the perception that such matters are "dull" and even a teeny bit "party pooping". So long as the public keep buying into the brand, keep rewarding its owner with their votes, there is no chance whatsoever of any progress on this. It will have to wait until there's a change at the top. Not any old change either. A big change.
BoZo's brand is built on cheating and lies.
The public are apparently fully supportive of that.
My point put rather more baldly!
I can tbf see the appeal of some facets of the Boris Brand. The positivity. The light touch. The vivid language. Not everything about it is toxic. But what is toxic - very - is the idea that a moral compass and a sense of public service is for po-faced dullards who take themselves and life too seriously. And sadly this comes with the product because it's integral to it.
You can't go to the store and say, "I'll have a Boris but one WITH a moral compass and sense of public service please."
That's not on the shelves.
Well it is though.
"A sense of public service" is typically used as a "redeeming" feature for the absolutely shit Prime Ministers we have had: Theresa May, Gordon Brown
The better Prime Ministers we've had - Boris himself, Dave, Blair - had a void where a moral compass and a sense of public service was meant to be, but they were far, far better Prime Ministers.
No appetite for a debate on "best PMs" but I do find it depressing if you've concluded that moral seriousness and a strong sense of public service is not only surplus to requirements but is actually something to be avoided. As it happens I believe you do genuinely feel this way - which illustrates very well the point I'm making. But I'd ask you to think seriously about it and if possible - with no pressure from me to admit it - realize that you are part of the problem.
I'm happy with sticking with saying that politicians who bang on about "morals", "moral majority", "moral seriousness" etc are the problem.
As for "public service" it blinds people into dogmatically thinking that what they're doing is right, because its part of the "service".
Keep your morals to yourself. Keep your public service to yourself. Politics should be about us making choices depending upon our own morals thank you. Politics should be about the public choosing what kind of service we want.
Not banging on about honesty and integrity. Just demonstrating some. It's important and ought to be a low bar.
Demand a little more, Philip. Politics is not like running a supermarket.
Integrity like "pretty straight kind of guy" Blair?
Where's this "bar" of yours set?
Blair followed a familiar template - pretending to be lilywhite . Johnson is a much more recent phenomenon - the ironic marketing of transgression.
That is something I find refreshingly honest about Boris.
People who pretend to be lilywhite are dishonest shysters. People who own their transgressions are oddly more honest.
Since Boris was a student of Classics, there's a Classics religious parallel to this. The Christian religion that dominate in society portrays God as this supreme, infallible being. But in antiquity the pantheon of gods were all openly flawed. Greco-Roman gods were every bit as flawed as humans.
Why shouldn't our politicians be just as flawed as us "mere mortals"? At least then they're not covering it up.
The gods were flawed, but if Pericles presented himself as Johnson he wouldn't have lasted long. Our democratic assumptions precede Judeo-Christian morality ; they rely on a level of systemic trust, which starts to unravel very quickly if openly flouting them starts to be seen as a virtue.
The problem is all politicians are people, they're all flawed. Johnson just owns his flaws honestly.
The old saying of "its not the crime, its the cover up" that is the biggest problem applies. Johnson doesn't cover up his foibles.
There's little risk of a foreign power having something on Johnson to make him a Cnut, because he's openly a Cnut.
He's making the point that cases will inevitably rise as we unlock but that we have to accept it and carry on - isn't that exactly what you've been saying?
Boris Johnson has warned that coronavirus infections will rise as lockdown eases, but said there is no reason to change the proposed roadmap to end restrictions.
"People, I don't think, appreciate that it's the lockdown that has been overwhelmingly important in delivering this improvement," Mr Johnson said. "Of course the vaccination programme has helped, but the bulk of work in reducing disease has been done by the lockdown.
"So, as we unlock, the result will inevitably be that we will see more infection, sadly we will see more hospitalisation and deaths. People have just got to understand that."
The messaging is stupid though – did you watch the clip? He needs to engage brain before opening mouth.
This is surprising, as the Government media agenda setting programme is running like clockwork. Today, for example the positive news of 45 and overs eligible for the vaccine is the headline on pretty much all bulletins, knocking Greensill to an insignificant second sThat would suggest the weak link is Johnson.
it's impossible for this particular government to get a grip on this particular problem - rock bottom standards in public life - because it is led by an individual whose (very powerful) political brand is built upon encouraging the perception that such matters are "dull" and even a teeny bit "party pooping". So long as the public keep buying into the brand, keep rewarding its owner with their votes, there is no chance whatsoever of any progress on this. It will have to wait until there's a change at the top. Not any old change either. A big change.
BoZo's brand is built on cheating and lies.
The public are apparently fully supportive of that.
My point put rather more baldly!
I can tbf see the appeal of some facets of the Boris Brand. The positivity. The light touch. The vivid language. Not everything about it is toxic. But what is toxic - very - is the idea that a moral compass and a sense of public service is for po-faced dullards who take themselves and life too seriously. And sadly this comes with the product because it's integral to it.
You can't go to the store and say, "I'll have a Boris but one WITH a moral compass and sense of public service please."
That's not on the shelves.
But a big part of Boris's appeal is what he isn't. Jeremy Corbyn personified what a lot of voters distrust about the left as a whole. Now the cartoon bogeyman has gone, but a lot of what he represented is still there in 'the left'. The dislike of Britain and its history and its instincts and its culture. The instinct that it doesn't particularly like the British and would prefer they were rather different. The constant manufactured outrage. Now, you might well argue that Starmer has tried, with some success, to move away from this. But it doesn't strike voters as instinctive, and voters don't trust the party behind him. If Corbyn is the bogeyman, people aren't convinced that Starmer is not-Corbyn enough. I don't know, realistically, what more he could have done so far, but that's where we are. Boris is still getting a great deal of benefit from being convincingly not Corbyn.
This is a big part of Labour's challenge. The truth is Starmer has marginalized the hard left. The people and attitudes you're talking about are not influential now. But of course Team Tory will run this line for as long as it pays dividends. My feeling is that Starmer is all over this danger and it's right at the top of his list for GE24 to nullify it. Will he succeed? I think he will on this score. Which doesn't mean a Labour government, but it does mean a competitive election.
It's all about not scaring the horses, and Starmer doesn't scare the horses. Whether or not that is converted into a win all depends on how the land lies for the Government in a post- pandemic reality. One thing that I am heartened by is that the Government's ten point poll lead is very soft (as was Labou's poll parity last year).
it's impossible for this particular government to get a grip on this particular problem - rock bottom standards in public life - because it is led by an individual whose (very powerful) political brand is built upon encouraging the perception that such matters are "dull" and even a teeny bit "party pooping". So long as the public keep buying into the brand, keep rewarding its owner with their votes, there is no chance whatsoever of any progress on this. It will have to wait until there's a change at the top. Not any old change either. A big change.
BoZo's brand is built on cheating and lies.
The public are apparently fully supportive of that.
My point put rather more baldly!
I can tbf see the appeal of some facets of the Boris Brand. The positivity. The light touch. The vivid language. Not everything about it is toxic. But what is toxic - very - is the idea that a moral compass and a sense of public service is for po-faced dullards who take themselves and life too seriously. And sadly this comes with the product because it's integral to it.
You can't go to the store and say, "I'll have a Boris but one WITH a moral compass and sense of public service please."
That's not on the shelves.
But what is toxic - very - is the idea that a moral compass and a sense of public service is for po-faced dullards who take themselves and life too seriously.
But what if a moral compass and a sense of public service is for po-faced dullards who take themselves and life too seriously?
Lo, the insidiousness of the Boris Brand. What it does to otherwise perfectly respectable people is a terrible thing to behold.
Very much as Trump got his supporters to enjoy the ironic and transgressive theatre, all a joke for ironic and worldly people on too-easily-offended liberals, until he was getting some of them to smash the windows of the Capitol.
Yep. He managed to bring out the worst in everyone, Trump did, supporters and opponents alike. What a dark talent.
He's making the point that cases will inevitably rise as we unlock but that we have to accept it and carry on - isn't that exactly what you've been saying?
Boris Johnson has warned that coronavirus infections will rise as lockdown eases, but said there is no reason to change the proposed roadmap to end restrictions.
"People, I don't think, appreciate that it's the lockdown that has been overwhelmingly important in delivering this improvement," Mr Johnson said. "Of course the vaccination programme has helped, but the bulk of work in reducing disease has been done by the lockdown.
"So, as we unlock, the result will inevitably be that we will see more infection, sadly we will see more hospitalisation and deaths. People have just got to understand that."
The messaging is stupid though – did you watch the clip? He needs to engage brain before opening mouth.
I'm just going by his direct quotes. He's doing what you want - take yes for an answer!
Is there ever a day where you drop the partisan bullshit and look at the world with mist-free eyes?
The messaging sucks. If you can't see that I suggest a new pair of glasses.
The only thing he needs to say is: GET YOUR JAB.
No he needs to do 2 separate things:-
1) Get Your Jab
2) Prepare people in case something appears that stops the jab working.
3) Prepare people in case they see cases rising post-lockdown and so prevent unnecessary panic.
it's impossible for this particular government to get a grip on this particular problem - rock bottom standards in public life - because it is led by an individual whose (very powerful) political brand is built upon encouraging the perception that such matters are "dull" and even a teeny bit "party pooping". So long as the public keep buying into the brand, keep rewarding its owner with their votes, there is no chance whatsoever of any progress on this. It will have to wait until there's a change at the top. Not any old change either. A big change.
BoZo's brand is built on cheating and lies.
The public are apparently fully supportive of that.
My point put rather more baldly!
I can tbf see the appeal of some facets of the Boris Brand. The positivity. The light touch. The vivid language. Not everything about it is toxic. But what is toxic - very - is the idea that a moral compass and a sense of public service is for po-faced dullards who take themselves and life too seriously. And sadly this comes with the product because it's integral to it.
You can't go to the store and say, "I'll have a Boris but one WITH a moral compass and sense of public service please."
That's not on the shelves.
But what is toxic - very - is the idea that a moral compass and a sense of public service is for po-faced dullards who take themselves and life too seriously.
But what if a moral compass and a sense of public service is for po-faced dullards who take themselves and life too seriously?
Lo, the insidiousness of the Boris Brand. What it does to otherwise perfectly respectable people is a terrible thing to behold.
You are the ghost of the late Jerry Falwell, Sr. and I claim $5.
He's making the point that cases will inevitably rise as we unlock but that we have to accept it and carry on - isn't that exactly what you've been saying?
Boris Johnson has warned that coronavirus infections will rise as lockdown eases, but said there is no reason to change the proposed roadmap to end restrictions.
"People, I don't think, appreciate that it's the lockdown that has been overwhelmingly important in delivering this improvement," Mr Johnson said. "Of course the vaccination programme has helped, but the bulk of work in reducing disease has been done by the lockdown.
"So, as we unlock, the result will inevitably be that we will see more infection, sadly we will see more hospitalisation and deaths. People have just got to understand that."
The messaging is stupid though – did you watch the clip? He needs to engage brain before opening mouth.
I'm just going by his direct quotes. He's doing what you want - take yes for an answer!
Is there ever a day where you drop the partisan bullshit and look at the world with mist-free eyes?
The messaging sucks. If you can't see that I suggest a new pair of glasses.
The only thing he needs to say is: GET YOUR JAB.
No he needs to do 2 separate things:-
1) Get Your Jab
2) Prepare people in case something appears that stops the jab working.
2 is a tweaked vaccination booster. It cannot be another lockdown. Enough.
it's impossible for this particular government to get a grip on this particular problem - rock bottom standards in public life - because it is led by an individual whose (very powerful) political brand is built upon encouraging the perception that such matters are "dull" and even a teeny bit "party pooping". So long as the public keep buying into the brand, keep rewarding its owner with their votes, there is no chance whatsoever of any progress on this. It will have to wait until there's a change at the top. Not any old change either. A big change.
BoZo's brand is built on cheating and lies.
The public are apparently fully supportive of that.
Boris has yet to prove himself against an opponent who is not electoral poison - like Livingstone ans Corbyn
Is what people who say he is a "winner" forget. I canvassed for him for mayor, god help me, and in many neighbourhoods the conversation went: "Ken Livingstone". Same for the Corbyn GE.
Ken Livingstone managed to win in the first place even without the advantage of a party machine behind him. He clearly didn't start out as electoral poison.
Perhaps Johnson's electoral strength is such that he makes his opponents look like complete no-hopers?
Yep. Boris Johnson is more asset than liability. I think people are kidding themselves if they believe he keeps passing electoral tests only (or even mainly) because of poor opposition. I want Labour to win enough seats at the next election to put Starmer into number 10 and I'll feel more hopeful of that against any opponent bar Johnson. Unfortunately (although not for my betting) I see little chance of a change of Con leader before the GE.
I don't know.
When the fall comes it will be swift and brutal. Whether that comes before the next GE is open for debate. In some respects Johnson having to carry the can for the economic aftermath of his Covid spending, both reasonable and profligate might be poetic justice. I am now expecting a spending led economic boom, before everyone runs out of borrowed money, and the inevitable bust.
We’re not borrowing money we’re printing it
That's government. But the punters are borrowing for their offers-over-valuation house purchases and astounding value automotive lease deals.
He's making the point that cases will inevitably rise as we unlock but that we have to accept it and carry on - isn't that exactly what you've been saying?
Boris Johnson has warned that coronavirus infections will rise as lockdown eases, but said there is no reason to change the proposed roadmap to end restrictions.
"People, I don't think, appreciate that it's the lockdown that has been overwhelmingly important in delivering this improvement," Mr Johnson said. "Of course the vaccination programme has helped, but the bulk of work in reducing disease has been done by the lockdown.
"So, as we unlock, the result will inevitably be that we will see more infection, sadly we will see more hospitalisation and deaths. People have just got to understand that."
The messaging is stupid though – did you watch the clip? He needs to engage brain before opening mouth.
I'm just going by his direct quotes. He's doing what you want - take yes for an answer!
Is there ever a day where you drop the partisan bullshit and look at the world with mist-free eyes?
The messaging sucks. If you can't see that I suggest a new pair of glasses.
The only thing he needs to say is: GET YOUR JAB.
Let's judge by the results, shall we? If you're right, his supposedly disastrous messaging will derail the vaccine programme and unlocking roadmap. If I'm right, it won't.
I think I'll be proved right.
Silly post. I don’t think it will derail anything, but it’s an unnecessary risk to take. Just a stupid, cack-handed way of phrasing it.
Not a partisan point by me: just frustrated with Boris for blundering around. Again.
it's impossible for this particular government to get a grip on this particular problem - rock bottom standards in public life - because it is led by an individual whose (very powerful) political brand is built upon encouraging the perception that such matters are "dull" and even a teeny bit "party pooping". So long as the public keep buying into the brand, keep rewarding its owner with their votes, there is no chance whatsoever of any progress on this. It will have to wait until there's a change at the top. Not any old change either. A big change.
BoZo's brand is built on cheating and lies.
The public are apparently fully supportive of that.
My point put rather more baldly!
I can tbf see the appeal of some facets of the Boris Brand. The positivity. The light touch. The vivid language. Not everything about it is toxic. But what is toxic - very - is the idea that a moral compass and a sense of public service is for po-faced dullards who take themselves and life too seriously. And sadly this comes with the product because it's integral to it.
You can't go to the store and say, "I'll have a Boris but one WITH a moral compass and sense of public service please."
That's not on the shelves.
Well it is though.
"A sense of public service" is typically used as a "redeeming" feature for the absolutely shit Prime Ministers we have had: Theresa May, Gordon Brown
The better Prime Ministers we've had - Boris himself, Dave, Blair - had a void where a moral compass and a sense of public service was meant to be, but they were far, far better Prime Ministers.
No appetite for a debate on "best PMs" but I do find it depressing if you've concluded that moral seriousness and a strong sense of public service is not only surplus to requirements but is actually something to be avoided. As it happens I believe you do genuinely feel this way - which illustrates very well the point I'm making. But I'd ask you to think seriously about it and if possible - with no pressure from me to admit it - realize that you are part of the problem.
I'm happy with sticking with saying that politicians who bang on about "morals", "moral majority", "moral seriousness" etc are the problem.
As for "public service" it blinds people into dogmatically thinking that what they're doing is right, because its part of the "service".
Keep your morals to yourself. Keep your public service to yourself. Politics should be about us making choices depending upon our own morals thank you. Politics should be about the public choosing what kind of service we want.
Not banging on about honesty and integrity. Just demonstrating some. It's important and ought to be a low bar.
Demand a little more, Philip. Politics is not like running a supermarket.
Integrity like "pretty straight kind of guy" Blair?
Where's this "bar" of yours set?
Blair followed a familiar template - pretending to be lilywhite . Johnson is a much more recent phenomenon - the ironic marketing of transgression.
That is something I find refreshingly honest about Boris.
People who pretend to be lilywhite are dishonest shysters. People who own their transgressions are oddly more honest.
Since Boris was a student of Classics, there's a Classics religious parallel to this. The Christian religion that dominate in society portrays God as this supreme, infallible being. But in antiquity the pantheon of gods were all openly flawed. Greco-Roman gods were every bit as flawed as humans.
Why shouldn't our politicians be just as flawed as us "mere mortals"? At least then they're not covering it up.
The gods were flawed, but if Pericles presented himself as Johnson he wouldn't have lasted long. Our democratic assumptions precede Judeo-Christian morality ; they rely on a level of systemic trust, which starts to unravel very quickly if openly flouting them starts to be seen as a virtue.
The problem is all politicians are people, they're all flawed. Johnson just owns his flaws honestly.
The old saying of "its not the crime, its the cover up" that is the biggest problem applies. Johnson doesn't cover up his foibles.
There's little risk of a foreign power having something on Johnson to make him a Cnut, because he's openly a Cnut.
Your posts remind me of David Runciman’s podcast lecture on Max Weber;
US regulators recommend a pause in Johnson and Johnson vaccine due to blood clots
Is that not the vaccine the EU were depending on
Yes, it's been coming for a few days as well. I don't think J&J will be offered to any UK adults or any EU adults under 50. This, IMO, will push back EU full reopening date back to around October but not make any difference for the UK as J&J doesn't form a major part of our plan.
Not doing the deal with Novavax is going to hurt a lot and it's really frustrating because it's the people who will suffer through more death and lockdown while the politicians will get away with it.
Given the rarity of this condition, and that it has been noted with both the vaccines using adenovirus vectors, and apparently not other vaccines, it seem fairly likely that it is associated with the adenovirus vector.
Question for @Foxy ... There was some speculation that the effect might be connected with inadvertent intravenous administration of the vaccine. Googling around, I see that adenovirus does target endolethial cells, and disruption of the endothelium is associated with thrombosis. Something in this, perhaps ?
it's impossible for this particular government to get a grip on this particular problem - rock bottom standards in public life - because it is led by an individual whose (very powerful) political brand is built upon encouraging the perception that such matters are "dull" and even a teeny bit "party pooping". So long as the public keep buying into the brand, keep rewarding its owner with their votes, there is no chance whatsoever of any progress on this. It will have to wait until there's a change at the top. Not any old change either. A big change.
BoZo's brand is built on cheating and lies.
The public are apparently fully supportive of that.
My point put rather more baldly!
I can tbf see the appeal of some facets of the Boris Brand. The positivity. The light touch. The vivid language. Not everything about it is toxic. But what is toxic - very - is the idea that a moral compass and a sense of public service is for po-faced dullards who take themselves and life too seriously. And sadly this comes with the product because it's integral to it.
You can't go to the store and say, "I'll have a Boris but one WITH a moral compass and sense of public service please."
That's not on the shelves.
Well it is though.
"A sense of public service" is typically used as a "redeeming" feature for the absolutely shit Prime Ministers we have had: Theresa May, Gordon Brown
The better Prime Ministers we've had - Boris himself, Dave, Blair - had a void where a moral compass and a sense of public service was meant to be, but they were far, far better Prime Ministers.
No appetite for a debate on "best PMs" but I do find it depressing if you've concluded that moral seriousness and a strong sense of public service is not only surplus to requirements but is actually something to be avoided. As it happens I believe you do genuinely feel this way - which illustrates very well the point I'm making. But I'd ask you to think seriously about it and if possible - with no pressure from me to admit it - realize that you are part of the problem.
I'm happy with sticking with saying that politicians who bang on about "morals", "moral majority", "moral seriousness" etc are the problem.
As for "public service" it blinds people into dogmatically thinking that what they're doing is right, because its part of the "service".
Keep your morals to yourself. Keep your public service to yourself. Politics should be about us making choices depending upon our own morals thank you. Politics should be about the public choosing what kind of service we want.
Not banging on about honesty and integrity. Just demonstrating some. It's important and ought to be a low bar.
Demand a little more, Philip. Politics is not like running a supermarket.
Integrity like "pretty straight kind of guy" Blair?
Where's this "bar" of yours set?
Blair followed a familiar template - pretending to be lilywhite. Johnson is a much more recent phenomenon - the ironic marketing of transgression.
An attack across 80 - 120 miles of sea, against a numerous and well-equipped military, defending its homeland, seems an extremely risky venture to me.
The Chinese strategy isn't invasion. It's gradual encirclement; through the 'The Great Wall of Sand' across the Spratlys and Paracels. One island at a time knowing the "West", in as much as that means anything anymore, won't do anything beyond harsh tweets. They'll do this while ferociously stoking internal dissent in Taiwan until sooner or later a tipping point will be reached.
A good point. We have also missed China's economic colonial takeover of East and Central Africa, while we were all worrying ourselves about MAGA, BREXIT and any other alphabet soup one cares to consider.
I'd have been delighted not to have spent any time worrying about MAGA and Brexit.
CCP is the acronym we should have been worrying about.
On topic (very slightly) I see that Greensill like a lot of affluent Aussies has the marginally weird habit of wearing RM Williams boots as formal wear - another brand besmirched At least BJ is a shit clothes black hole.
Oh dear. I sniff some "charisma".
That was the meeting in the desert with Sheik MbS. I wonder if they avoided the dismembered journalist shaped elephant in the room, even between themselves?
'Strewth mate, don't fancy those sheeps' eyes, IF THAT'S WHAT THEY ARE!'
He's making the point that cases will inevitably rise as we unlock but that we have to accept it and carry on - isn't that exactly what you've been saying?
Boris Johnson has warned that coronavirus infections will rise as lockdown eases, but said there is no reason to change the proposed roadmap to end restrictions.
"People, I don't think, appreciate that it's the lockdown that has been overwhelmingly important in delivering this improvement," Mr Johnson said. "Of course the vaccination programme has helped, but the bulk of work in reducing disease has been done by the lockdown.
"So, as we unlock, the result will inevitably be that we will see more infection, sadly we will see more hospitalisation and deaths. People have just got to understand that."
The messaging is stupid though – did you watch the clip? He needs to engage brain before opening mouth.
I'm just going by his direct quotes. He's doing what you want - take yes for an answer!
Is there ever a day where you drop the partisan bullshit and look at the world with mist-free eyes?
The messaging sucks. If you can't see that I suggest a new pair of glasses.
The only thing he needs to say is: GET YOUR JAB.
No he needs to do 2 separate things:-
1) Get Your Jab
2) Prepare people in case something appears that stops the jab working.
3) Prepare people in case they see cases rising post-lockdown and so prevent unnecessary panic.
If we eliminate every medicine that has a 1 in 1,000,000 chance of severe side effects or death we will soon have no medicine at all.
It depends on whether those 6 people were all in the same demographic category. If they were all women under 30 then it's more like 1/100k and the US is also in the same invidious position as us where we're able to pick and choose our vaccines.
The biggest loser from this is the EU who are very dependent on this for their summer targets for "full vaccination". It would be difficult for the same countries restricting AZ use to older people to also not do it for J&J.
Okay but even at 1 in 100,000 you face the problem that if you keep eliminating vaccines to vaccinate the young you make it much harder to end the pandemic. Vaccines aren't perfect and COVID-19 can be seriously debilitating even if you don't die. Also more cases means more infections, which means more mutation, maybe whilst we are all messing around rejecting vaccines a mutation will crop up that means COVID-19 does seriously affect the young.
Covid -19 DOES seriously affect the young - it has destroyed their opportunity and life more than more with the restrictions -
He's making the point that cases will inevitably rise as we unlock but that we have to accept it and carry on - isn't that exactly what you've been saying?
Boris Johnson has warned that coronavirus infections will rise as lockdown eases, but said there is no reason to change the proposed roadmap to end restrictions.
"People, I don't think, appreciate that it's the lockdown that has been overwhelmingly important in delivering this improvement," Mr Johnson said. "Of course the vaccination programme has helped, but the bulk of work in reducing disease has been done by the lockdown.
"So, as we unlock, the result will inevitably be that we will see more infection, sadly we will see more hospitalisation and deaths. People have just got to understand that."
The messaging is stupid though – did you watch the clip? He needs to engage brain before opening mouth.
I'm just going by his direct quotes. He's doing what you want - take yes for an answer!
Is there ever a day where you drop the partisan bullshit and look at the world with mist-free eyes?
The messaging sucks. If you can't see that I suggest a new pair of glasses.
The only thing he needs to say is: GET YOUR JAB.
No he needs to do 2 separate things:-
1) Get Your Jab
2) Prepare people in case something appears that stops the jab working.
2 is a tweaked vaccination booster. It cannot be another lockdown. Enough.
The best way to combat variants right now is sheer weight of initial vaccination. Paediatric approval would have a very beneficial effect at the start of Autumn.
He's making the point that cases will inevitably rise as we unlock but that we have to accept it and carry on - isn't that exactly what you've been saying?
Boris Johnson has warned that coronavirus infections will rise as lockdown eases, but said there is no reason to change the proposed roadmap to end restrictions.
"People, I don't think, appreciate that it's the lockdown that has been overwhelmingly important in delivering this improvement," Mr Johnson said. "Of course the vaccination programme has helped, but the bulk of work in reducing disease has been done by the lockdown.
"So, as we unlock, the result will inevitably be that we will see more infection, sadly we will see more hospitalisation and deaths. People have just got to understand that."
The messaging is stupid though – did you watch the clip? He needs to engage brain before opening mouth.
it's impossible for this particular government to get a grip on this particular problem - rock bottom standards in public life - because it is led by an individual whose (very powerful) political brand is built upon encouraging the perception that such matters are "dull" and even a teeny bit "party pooping". So long as the public keep buying into the brand, keep rewarding its owner with their votes, there is no chance whatsoever of any progress on this. It will have to wait until there's a change at the top. Not any old change either. A big change.
BoZo's brand is built on cheating and lies.
The public are apparently fully supportive of that.
My point put rather more baldly!
I can tbf see the appeal of some facets of the Boris Brand. The positivity. The light touch. The vivid language. Not everything about it is toxic. But what is toxic - very - is the idea that a moral compass and a sense of public service is for po-faced dullards who take themselves and life too seriously. And sadly this comes with the product because it's integral to it.
You can't go to the store and say, "I'll have a Boris but one WITH a moral compass and sense of public service please."
That's not on the shelves.
But a big part of Boris's appeal is what he isn't. Jeremy Corbyn personified what a lot of voters distrust about the left as a whole. Now the cartoon bogeyman has gone, but a lot of what he represented is still there in 'the left'. The dislike of Britain and its history and its instincts and its culture. The instinct that it doesn't particularly like the British and would prefer they were rather different. The constant manufactured outrage. Now, you might well argue that Starmer has tried, with some success, to move away from this. But it doesn't strike voters as instinctive, and voters don't trust the party behind him. If Corbyn is the bogeyman, people aren't convinced that Starmer is not-Corbyn enough. I don't know, realistically, what more he could have done so far, but that's where we are. Boris is still getting a great deal of benefit from being convincingly not Corbyn.
This is a big part of Labour's challenge. The truth is Starmer has marginalized the hard left. The people and attitudes you're talking about are not influential now. But of course Team Tory will run this line for as long as it pays dividends. My feeling is that Starmer is all over this danger and it's right at the top of his list for GE24 to nullify it. Will he succeed? I think he will on this score. Which doesn't mean a Labour government, but it does mean a competitive election.
It's all about not scaring the horses, and Starmer doesn't scare the horses. Whether or not that is converted into a win all depends on how the land lies for the Government in a post- pandemic reality. One thing that I am heartened by is that the Government's ten point poll lead is very soft (as was Labou's poll parity last year).
Agreed. What I meant is that blatting the "unpatriotic" smear plus (related) looking like a credible PM to floating voters is the de minimus. You're in the game then and have a chance to win depending on various other factors (eg state of the economy).
I am more saying what Starmer thinks, btw, than what I think. But I reckon that's more interesting for people atm. Me, I'm holding off until this time next year before deciding whether the strategy looks a good one.
In terms of legacy — it took a good 10-20 years before the true consequences of Devolution have only started to become clear.
We will have to wait the same time period before the true consequences of Brexit start to become clear.
Labour introduced the Minimum Wage but it was the Conservatives who ran with it with the "National Living Wage" etc. Perhaps in 10 years it will be Labour pushing "Brexit" to a new level.
There's so many unknowns.
Blame the consequences of devolution on the Blair years if you want. Devolution worked reasonably well (NI excepted for traditional reasons) until Johnson came in with his boots on.
Oh cut the crap.
It worked so well that Scotland has had a dominant nationalist majority in Holyrood since long before Johnson came in.
Asymmetric devolution has made a pigs breakfast of the union for years now. There is no solution to the WLQ, Holyrood has power but no responsibility so can just blame Westminster for everything bad, there's no English devolution and so on and so forth. Its a mess and not one of Johnson's making - not one that anybody has a solution for because there is no solution.
No matter what you do England will forever be worth more than 80% of MPs because simply England outweighs all nations tremendously. Its not a stable situation for a federal structure.
The WLQ predates Holyrood by 20+ years.
There needs to be an English Parliament.
All four Parliaments then need to raise most of their own money.
Agreed. Really the only thing which will save 'the union' will be devo max, and the removing of this tension.
but devomax doesn't work when one country will always overwhelm the other 3 as it has 80% of the population so will always end up with 80% of the vote.
I like @Luckyguy1983 's suggestion to give the proportional equivalent of one vote to each devolved nation and one vote to the "UK" parliament. That means that England only ever needs the support of one other home nation to railroad anything through, reflecting its relative size and importance.
I think that's a terrible idea.
One person, one vote. If that means England can get its way then so be it, England is over 80% of the union and that's democracy.
If the other nations don't want England to be able to act unilaterally, then they need to be independent of England. Its perfectly viable.
Let's not pretend you don't have a vested interest here. You want English independence so will poo poo any other suggestion to the contrary.
Federalism requires compromise if the Union is to be preserved. You may not want the Union to be preserved but plenty of people do.
That works with good faith partners. The SNP are not good faith partners. They want an end to the union.
Its like teaming up with someone who says 'I want to ditch you and will do everything I can to ditch you, and whilst we're together i'm going to keep slagging you off', that's not the basis for a lasting relationship.
Aye, poor, old good faith partners BJ and the Tory party being let down by other folk..
I'm talking about a fundamental basis of support for the union continuing. The truth isn't as clear-cut as that true, but the point remains.
For the last 20+ years part of the fundamental basis of of support for the union continuing is HMG accepting and supporting devolution. BJ & co have changed that, and as ye sow so shall ye reap.
A push for independence is not devolution it's separatism. It's the SNP which aren't interested in devolution as the endgame.
As I have said repeatedly (and no doubt tediously), if not for Brexit for which Scotland voted more enthusiastically against than England for, the SNP's main ambition would be aiming for the biggest party in the next Holyrood election, support for indy would be a steady 40-45% and Devolution would be stumbling along in it's incremental 'here's a wee bit more power' way. More sowing and reaping I'm afraid.
Maybe if No Deal but little evidence for that now we have a Brexit deal.
The final Yougov Scottish independence poll before the 2016 EU referendum in March 2016 was Yes 41% No 48% and Undecided 12%.
The latest Yougov Scottish independence poll from March 2021 was Yes 41% No 43% and Undecided 14%.
He's making the point that cases will inevitably rise as we unlock but that we have to accept it and carry on - isn't that exactly what you've been saying?
Boris Johnson has warned that coronavirus infections will rise as lockdown eases, but said there is no reason to change the proposed roadmap to end restrictions.
"People, I don't think, appreciate that it's the lockdown that has been overwhelmingly important in delivering this improvement," Mr Johnson said. "Of course the vaccination programme has helped, but the bulk of work in reducing disease has been done by the lockdown.
"So, as we unlock, the result will inevitably be that we will see more infection, sadly we will see more hospitalisation and deaths. People have just got to understand that."
The messaging is stupid though – did you watch the clip? He needs to engage brain before opening mouth.
it's impossible for this particular government to get a grip on this particular problem - rock bottom standards in public life - because it is led by an individual whose (very powerful) political brand is built upon encouraging the perception that such matters are "dull" and even a teeny bit "party pooping". So long as the public keep buying into the brand, keep rewarding its owner with their votes, there is no chance whatsoever of any progress on this. It will have to wait until there's a change at the top. Not any old change either. A big change.
BoZo's brand is built on cheating and lies.
The public are apparently fully supportive of that.
My point put rather more baldly!
I can tbf see the appeal of some facets of the Boris Brand. The positivity. The light touch. The vivid language. Not everything about it is toxic. But what is toxic - very - is the idea that a moral compass and a sense of public service is for po-faced dullards who take themselves and life too seriously. And sadly this comes with the product because it's integral to it.
You can't go to the store and say, "I'll have a Boris but one WITH a moral compass and sense of public service please."
That's not on the shelves.
But a big part of Boris's appeal is what he isn't. Jeremy Corbyn personified what a lot of voters distrust about the left as a whole. Now the cartoon bogeyman has gone, but a lot of what he represented is still there in 'the left'. The dislike of Britain and its history and its instincts and its culture. The instinct that it doesn't particularly like the British and would prefer they were rather different. The constant manufactured outrage. Now, you might well argue that Starmer has tried, with some success, to move away from this. But it doesn't strike voters as instinctive, and voters don't trust the party behind him. If Corbyn is the bogeyman, people aren't convinced that Starmer is not-Corbyn enough. I don't know, realistically, what more he could have done so far, but that's where we are. Boris is still getting a great deal of benefit from being convincingly not Corbyn.
This is a big part of Labour's challenge. The truth is Starmer has marginalized the hard left. The people and attitudes you're talking about are not influential now. But of course Team Tory will run this line for as long as it pays dividends. My feeling is that Starmer is all over this danger and it's right at the top of his list for GE24 to nullify it. Will he succeed? I think he will on this score. Which doesn't mean a Labour government, but it does mean a competitive election.
It's all about not scaring the horses, and Starmer doesn't scare the horses. Whether or not that is converted into a win all depends on how the land lies for the Government in a post- pandemic reality. One thing that I am heartened by is that the Government's ten point poll lead is very soft (as was Labou's poll parity last year).
Agreed. What I meant is that blatting the "unpatriotic" smear plus (related) looking like a credible PM to floating voters is the de minimus. You're in the game then and have a chance to win depending on various other factors (eg state of the economy).
I am more saying what Starmer thinks, btw, than what I think. But I reckon that's more interesting for people atm. Me, I'm holding off until this time next year before deciding whether the strategy looks a good one.
He is unfortunate in that he has found himself in the position of having had to agree with everything the government has proposed for the past year ("oh but we would have done it like this" doesn't cut it for political not-interesteds).
When the dust settles he will either be that bloke that held his nerve, maintained his smart haircut, and is ready to lead the country; or the one that didn't have any policies of his own and lined up with the govt at every opportunity.
I'm guessing that voters of the former view will likely be those who might not have voted Lab before, while those of the latter, those who probably have.
He's making the point that cases will inevitably rise as we unlock but that we have to accept it and carry on - isn't that exactly what you've been saying?
Boris Johnson has warned that coronavirus infections will rise as lockdown eases, but said there is no reason to change the proposed roadmap to end restrictions.
"People, I don't think, appreciate that it's the lockdown that has been overwhelmingly important in delivering this improvement," Mr Johnson said. "Of course the vaccination programme has helped, but the bulk of work in reducing disease has been done by the lockdown.
"So, as we unlock, the result will inevitably be that we will see more infection, sadly we will see more hospitalisation and deaths. People have just got to understand that."
The messaging is stupid though – did you watch the clip? He needs to engage brain before opening mouth.
it's impossible for this particular government to get a grip on this particular problem - rock bottom standards in public life - because it is led by an individual whose (very powerful) political brand is built upon encouraging the perception that such matters are "dull" and even a teeny bit "party pooping". So long as the public keep buying into the brand, keep rewarding its owner with their votes, there is no chance whatsoever of any progress on this. It will have to wait until there's a change at the top. Not any old change either. A big change.
BoZo's brand is built on cheating and lies.
The public are apparently fully supportive of that.
My point put rather more baldly!
I can tbf see the appeal of some facets of the Boris Brand. The positivity. The light touch. The vivid language. Not everything about it is toxic. But what is toxic - very - is the idea that a moral compass and a sense of public service is for po-faced dullards who take themselves and life too seriously. And sadly this comes with the product because it's integral to it.
You can't go to the store and say, "I'll have a Boris but one WITH a moral compass and sense of public service please."
That's not on the shelves.
But a big part of Boris's appeal is what he isn't. Jeremy Corbyn personified what a lot of voters distrust about the left as a whole. Now the cartoon bogeyman has gone, but a lot of what he represented is still there in 'the left'. The dislike of Britain and its history and its instincts and its culture. The instinct that it doesn't particularly like the British and would prefer they were rather different. The constant manufactured outrage. Now, you might well argue that Starmer has tried, with some success, to move away from this. But it doesn't strike voters as instinctive, and voters don't trust the party behind him. If Corbyn is the bogeyman, people aren't convinced that Starmer is not-Corbyn enough. I don't know, realistically, what more he could have done so far, but that's where we are. Boris is still getting a great deal of benefit from being convincingly not Corbyn.
This is a big part of Labour's challenge. The truth is Starmer has marginalized the hard left. The people and attitudes you're talking about are not influential now. But of course Team Tory will run this line for as long as it pays dividends. My feeling is that Starmer is all over this danger and it's right at the top of his list for GE24 to nullify it. Will he succeed? I think he will on this score. Which doesn't mean a Labour government, but it does mean a competitive election.
It's all about not scaring the horses, and Starmer doesn't scare the horses. Whether or not that is converted into a win all depends on how the land lies for the Government in a post- pandemic reality. One thing that I am heartened by is that the Government's ten point poll lead is very soft (as was Labou's poll parity last year).
Agreed. What I meant is that blatting the "unpatriotic" smear plus (related) looking like a credible PM to floating voters is the de minimus. You're in the game then and have a chance to win depending on various other factors (eg state of the economy).
I am more saying what Starmer thinks, btw, than what I think. But I reckon that's more interesting for people atm. Me, I'm holding off until this time next year before deciding whether the strategy looks a good one.
He's making the point that cases will inevitably rise as we unlock but that we have to accept it and carry on - isn't that exactly what you've been saying?
Boris Johnson has warned that coronavirus infections will rise as lockdown eases, but said there is no reason to change the proposed roadmap to end restrictions.
"People, I don't think, appreciate that it's the lockdown that has been overwhelmingly important in delivering this improvement," Mr Johnson said. "Of course the vaccination programme has helped, but the bulk of work in reducing disease has been done by the lockdown.
"So, as we unlock, the result will inevitably be that we will see more infection, sadly we will see more hospitalisation and deaths. People have just got to understand that."
The messaging is stupid though – did you watch the clip? He needs to engage brain before opening mouth.
I'm just going by his direct quotes. He's doing what you want - take yes for an answer!
Is there ever a day where you drop the partisan bullshit and look at the world with mist-free eyes?
The messaging sucks. If you can't see that I suggest a new pair of glasses.
The only thing he needs to say is: GET YOUR JAB.
No he needs to do 2 separate things:-
1) Get Your Jab
2) Prepare people in case something appears that stops the jab working.
2 is a tweaked vaccination booster. It cannot be another lockdown. Enough.
The best way to combat variants right now is sheer weight of initial vaccination. Paediatric approval would have a very beneficial effect at the start of Autumn.
We need to buy more Pfizer and Moderna for that now as AZ will definitely have a higher differential risk among kids who have got basically zero risk of developing severe COVID symptoms. We'd also need to wait for Pfizer to commence a trial for 5-11 year olds too as I think the current trial was for 12-17 year olds. I think both are on the cards, the issue will be timing. I think we may work with Biden on this as well so we're importing Pfizer doses from the US rather than from the EU as well.
The problem is all politicians are people, they're all flawed. Johnson just owns his flaws honestly.
He really doesn't own his flaws honestly. He makes jokes. It's not the same thing at all.
People adore him. They just can't help themselves. He has rock star quality and, frankly, when attention is at a premium these days, that could easily get him through.
it's impossible for this particular government to get a grip on this particular problem - rock bottom standards in public life - because it is led by an individual whose (very powerful) political brand is built upon encouraging the perception that such matters are "dull" and even a teeny bit "party pooping". So long as the public keep buying into the brand, keep rewarding its owner with their votes, there is no chance whatsoever of any progress on this. It will have to wait until there's a change at the top. Not any old change either. A big change.
BoZo's brand is built on cheating and lies.
The public are apparently fully supportive of that.
My point put rather more baldly!
I can tbf see the appeal of some facets of the Boris Brand. The positivity. The light touch. The vivid language. Not everything about it is toxic. But what is toxic - very - is the idea that a moral compass and a sense of public service is for po-faced dullards who take themselves and life too seriously. And sadly this comes with the product because it's integral to it.
You can't go to the store and say, "I'll have a Boris but one WITH a moral compass and sense of public service please."
That's not on the shelves.
Well it is though.
"A sense of public service" is typically used as a "redeeming" feature for the absolutely shit Prime Ministers we have had: Theresa May, Gordon Brown
The better Prime Ministers we've had - Boris himself, Dave, Blair - had a void where a moral compass and a sense of public service was meant to be, but they were far, far better Prime Ministers.
No appetite for a debate on "best PMs" but I do find it depressing if you've concluded that moral seriousness and a strong sense of public service is not only surplus to requirements but is actually something to be avoided. As it happens I believe you do genuinely feel this way - which illustrates very well the point I'm making. But I'd ask you to think seriously about it and if possible - with no pressure from me to admit it - realize that you are part of the problem.
The best description I heard of the role was “the guy you hire to do the things that you know need to be done but that you don’t want to know are being done”
Well,knock me down with a feather. Ms Markle, according to the Daily Mirror, isn't coming to the funeral, "because she doesn't want to be the centre of attention". Risible! So speaks someone who has sought to be the centre of attention in everything she does !
She's right though. She would be the centre of attention. And that wouldn't be good.
Yes. But why does she feel the need to say that. She had a plausible excuse. She should have STFU.
But she has chosen to make the story about her instead
Blimey she really can't win.
Says nothing: heartless b*tch Says I'm coming: me me me Says I'm not coming: heartless b*tch
Not at all.
I think it was an elegant solution to take doctors advice not to come (I think she should have come to support her husband but that’s up to them).
But not to come because of doctors advice and then brief out a story designed to create a positive news cycle about her is despicable.
And I would never call anyone a bitch.
Amounts to the same thing, Charles. One man's despicable (really - despicable? Of all the things in the world this is despicable?) is another man's b*tch.
And good also to see that you are using the Daily Mirror as your factchecking source. I just had to google MM because I have and had no idea about her various movements and intentions. That you knew shows an unhealthy obsession.
Which is fine. You wouldn't be alone. But then put yourself in the same basket as all those Daily Mirror/Mail reading punters.
As I have said many times previously, either you know the people involved in which case you should STFU or you don't, in which case you should STFU.
When I was at the Palace I knew I could have made £500 every week by divulging some tidbit or other - a nothing story, really - to the press but of course wouldn't have dreamt of doing so.
You position yourself as someone in the know. In which case fucking well behave yourself.
I don’t reveal anything on here that I shouldn’t and I’m certainly not in the “inner circle” of either of the princes - and have no interest in trying to become so - although I’ve met various royals over the years.
It’s just my view based on public information and my read of the situation. Feel free to ignore me if you want to do so, although the fact that you are so defensive suggests I may be reading things right.
I’ve no idea whether the Mirror story is correct or not - but I don’t have the time or energy to fact check every story from a mainstream publication.
Ah right ok s'cool. You don't know anything. No problem.
As for "I've no idea whether the Mirror story is correct or not" - you wanted to believe it such that you were prepared to call MM "despicable" on the back of it.
I said it would be despicable. If she didn’t do it then she isn’t. If she did then she is. Simples.
Well,knock me down with a feather. Ms Markle, according to the Daily Mirror, isn't coming to the funeral, "because she doesn't want to be the centre of attention". Risible! So speaks someone who has sought to be the centre of attention in everything she does !
She's right though. She would be the centre of attention. And that wouldn't be good.
Yes. But why does she feel the need to say that. She had a plausible excuse. She should have STFU.
But she has chosen to make the story about her instead
Blimey she really can't win.
Says nothing: heartless b*tch Says I'm coming: me me me Says I'm not coming: heartless b*tch
Not at all.
I think it was an elegant solution to take doctors advice not to come (I think she should have come to support her husband but that’s up to them).
But not to come because of doctors advice and then brief out a story designed to create a positive news cycle about her is despicable.
And I would never call anyone a bitch.
Amounts to the same thing, Charles. One man's despicable (really - despicable? Of all the things in the world this is despicable?) is another man's b*tch.
And good also to see that you are using the Daily Mirror as your factchecking source. I just had to google MM because I have and had no idea about her various movements and intentions. That you knew shows an unhealthy obsession.
Which is fine. You wouldn't be alone. But then put yourself in the same basket as all those Daily Mirror/Mail reading punters.
As I have said many times previously, either you know the people involved in which case you should STFU or you don't, in which case you should STFU.
When I was at the Palace I knew I could have made £500 every week by divulging some tidbit or other - a nothing story, really - to the press but of course wouldn't have dreamt of doing so.
You position yourself as someone in the know. In which case fucking well behave yourself.
I don’t reveal anything on here that I shouldn’t and I’m certainly not in the “inner circle” of either of the princes - and have no interest in trying to become so - although I’ve met various royals over the years.
It’s just my view based on public information and my read of the situation. Feel free to ignore me if you want to do so, although the fact that you are so defensive suggests I may be reading things right.
I’ve no idea whether the Mirror story is correct or not - but I don’t have the time or energy to fact check every story from a mainstream publication.
Ah right ok s'cool. You don't know anything. No problem.
As for "I've no idea whether the Mirror story is correct or not" - you wanted to believe it such that you were prepared to call MM "despicable" on the back of it.
I said it would be despicable. If she didn’t do it then she isn’t. If she did then she is. Simples.
First off there was no conditional earlier on. You had picked up and run with the Daily Mirror story. You said:
"But not to come because of doctors advice and then brief out a story designed to create a positive news cycle about her is despicable."
And then "despicable" - "deserving hatred and contempt".
Is that how you live your life, Charles? Hating someone you don't know on account of something they may or may not have said or done?
In terms of legacy — it took a good 10-20 years before the true consequences of Devolution have only started to become clear.
We will have to wait the same time period before the true consequences of Brexit start to become clear.
Labour introduced the Minimum Wage but it was the Conservatives who ran with it with the "National Living Wage" etc. Perhaps in 10 years it will be Labour pushing "Brexit" to a new level.
There's so many unknowns.
Blame the consequences of devolution on the Blair years if you want. Devolution worked reasonably well (NI excepted for traditional reasons) until Johnson came in with his boots on.
Oh cut the crap.
It worked so well that Scotland has had a dominant nationalist majority in Holyrood since long before Johnson came in.
Asymmetric devolution has made a pigs breakfast of the union for years now. There is no solution to the WLQ, Holyrood has power but no responsibility so can just blame Westminster for everything bad, there's no English devolution and so on and so forth. Its a mess and not one of Johnson's making - not one that anybody has a solution for because there is no solution.
No matter what you do England will forever be worth more than 80% of MPs because simply England outweighs all nations tremendously. Its not a stable situation for a federal structure.
The WLQ predates Holyrood by 20+ years.
There needs to be an English Parliament.
All four Parliaments then need to raise most of their own money.
Agreed. Really the only thing which will save 'the union' will be devo max, and the removing of this tension.
but devomax doesn't work when one country will always overwhelm the other 3 as it has 80% of the population so will always end up with 80% of the vote.
I like @Luckyguy1983 's suggestion to give the proportional equivalent of one vote to each devolved nation and one vote to the "UK" parliament. That means that England only ever needs the support of one other home nation to railroad anything through, reflecting its relative size and importance.
Not sure if that's what you intended, but kind of implicit that the 'UK' Parliament would always support England..
Well the 'UK' Parliament would be on a 1 person 1 vote basis so would usually reflect England's wishes.
And so we have the WLQ. On a fundamental head count, England always gets it's way.
Brexit would have been like this:
England - Yes Wales - Yes UK - Yes Scotland - No Northern Ireland - No
Brexit goes through constitutionally. If Wales had also voted against, it would not have passed, despite England.
That's an utter dogs dinner, you could have a situation where a vast majority of people want a policy but blockers in the other home nations have comparatively a vast higher level of influence.
Say on a vote we have:
80/20 England 45/55 Other countries.
I won't do the maths, but on that basis the vote would fail even if maybe 60-70% of overall votes were for it.
In fact, in a campaign, you wouldn't put any resources for 'no' into England, just go for the others, as the vote in England doesn't matter anymore.
Well yeah, that's federalism.
Which works when the numbers of federal states are high enough so not one can dominate. In the UK we would, have 5 states, and one which is 10 times as big as the closest other.
What country works on that basis?
The logical answer is to subdivide England. London has different interests to Cornwall, etc
He's making the point that cases will inevitably rise as we unlock but that we have to accept it and carry on - isn't that exactly what you've been saying?
Boris Johnson has warned that coronavirus infections will rise as lockdown eases, but said there is no reason to change the proposed roadmap to end restrictions.
"People, I don't think, appreciate that it's the lockdown that has been overwhelmingly important in delivering this improvement," Mr Johnson said. "Of course the vaccination programme has helped, but the bulk of work in reducing disease has been done by the lockdown.
"So, as we unlock, the result will inevitably be that we will see more infection, sadly we will see more hospitalisation and deaths. People have just got to understand that."
The messaging is stupid though – did you watch the clip? He needs to engage brain before opening mouth.
I'm just going by his direct quotes. He's doing what you want - take yes for an answer!
Is there ever a day where you drop the partisan bullshit and look at the world with mist-free eyes?
The messaging sucks. If you can't see that I suggest a new pair of glasses.
The only thing he needs to say is: GET YOUR JAB.
Let's judge by the results, shall we? If you're right, his supposedly disastrous messaging will derail the vaccine programme and unlocking roadmap. If I'm right, it won't.
I think I'll be proved right.
Silly post. I don’t think it will derail anything, but it’s an unnecessary risk to take. Just a stupid, cack-handed way of phrasing it.
Not a partisan point by me: just frustrated with Boris for blundering around. Again.
Don't be too cruel to him, he had an haircut yesterday.
It might be like a cat's disorientation after having its whiskers trimmed.
In terms of legacy — it took a good 10-20 years before the true consequences of Devolution have only started to become clear.
We will have to wait the same time period before the true consequences of Brexit start to become clear.
Labour introduced the Minimum Wage but it was the Conservatives who ran with it with the "National Living Wage" etc. Perhaps in 10 years it will be Labour pushing "Brexit" to a new level.
There's so many unknowns.
Blame the consequences of devolution on the Blair years if you want. Devolution worked reasonably well (NI excepted for traditional reasons) until Johnson came in with his boots on.
Oh cut the crap.
It worked so well that Scotland has had a dominant nationalist majority in Holyrood since long before Johnson came in.
Asymmetric devolution has made a pigs breakfast of the union for years now. There is no solution to the WLQ, Holyrood has power but no responsibility so can just blame Westminster for everything bad, there's no English devolution and so on and so forth. Its a mess and not one of Johnson's making - not one that anybody has a solution for because there is no solution.
No matter what you do England will forever be worth more than 80% of MPs because simply England outweighs all nations tremendously. Its not a stable situation for a federal structure.
The WLQ predates Holyrood by 20+ years.
There needs to be an English Parliament.
All four Parliaments then need to raise most of their own money.
Agreed. Really the only thing which will save 'the union' will be devo max, and the removing of this tension.
but devomax doesn't work when one country will always overwhelm the other 3 as it has 80% of the population so will always end up with 80% of the vote.
I like @Luckyguy1983 's suggestion to give the proportional equivalent of one vote to each devolved nation and one vote to the "UK" parliament. That means that England only ever needs the support of one other home nation to railroad anything through, reflecting its relative size and importance.
Not sure if that's what you intended, but kind of implicit that the 'UK' Parliament would always support England..
Well the 'UK' Parliament would be on a 1 person 1 vote basis so would usually reflect England's wishes.
And so we have the WLQ. On a fundamental head count, England always gets it's way.
Brexit would have been like this:
England - Yes Wales - Yes UK - Yes Scotland - No Northern Ireland - No
Brexit goes through constitutionally. If Wales had also voted against, it would not have passed, despite England.
That's an utter dogs dinner, you could have a situation where a vast majority of people want a policy but blockers in the other home nations have comparatively a vast higher level of influence.
Say on a vote we have:
80/20 England 45/55 Other countries.
I won't do the maths, but on that basis the vote would fail even if maybe 60-70% of overall votes were for it.
In fact, in a campaign, you wouldn't put any resources for 'no' into England, just go for the others, as the vote in England doesn't matter anymore.
Well yeah, that's federalism.
Which works when the numbers of federal states are high enough so not one can dominate. In the UK we would, have 5 states, and one which is 10 times as big as the closest other.
What country works on that basis?
The logical answer is to subdivide England. London has different interests to Cornwall, etc
It would work if the regional devolution was at a similar level to Wales, so that Westminster doesn't become irrelevant. Unfortunately, getting powers back from Scotland to make the whole thing fair is not going to be easy.
In terms of legacy — it took a good 10-20 years before the true consequences of Devolution have only started to become clear.
We will have to wait the same time period before the true consequences of Brexit start to become clear.
Labour introduced the Minimum Wage but it was the Conservatives who ran with it with the "National Living Wage" etc. Perhaps in 10 years it will be Labour pushing "Brexit" to a new level.
There's so many unknowns.
Blame the consequences of devolution on the Blair years if you want. Devolution worked reasonably well (NI excepted for traditional reasons) until Johnson came in with his boots on.
Oh cut the crap.
It worked so well that Scotland has had a dominant nationalist majority in Holyrood since long before Johnson came in.
Asymmetric devolution has made a pigs breakfast of the union for years now. There is no solution to the WLQ, Holyrood has power but no responsibility so can just blame Westminster for everything bad, there's no English devolution and so on and so forth. Its a mess and not one of Johnson's making - not one that anybody has a solution for because there is no solution.
No matter what you do England will forever be worth more than 80% of MPs because simply England outweighs all nations tremendously. Its not a stable situation for a federal structure.
The WLQ predates Holyrood by 20+ years.
There needs to be an English Parliament.
All four Parliaments then need to raise most of their own money.
Agreed. Really the only thing which will save 'the union' will be devo max, and the removing of this tension.
but devomax doesn't work when one country will always overwhelm the other 3 as it has 80% of the population so will always end up with 80% of the vote.
I like @Luckyguy1983 's suggestion to give the proportional equivalent of one vote to each devolved nation and one vote to the "UK" parliament. That means that England only ever needs the support of one other home nation to railroad anything through, reflecting its relative size and importance.
I think that's a terrible idea.
One person, one vote. If that means England can get its way then so be it, England is over 80% of the union and that's democracy.
If the other nations don't want England to be able to act unilaterally, then they need to be independent of England. Its perfectly viable.
Let's not pretend you don't have a vested interest here. You want English independence so will poo poo any other suggestion to the contrary.
Federalism requires compromise if the Union is to be preserved. You may not want the Union to be preserved but plenty of people do.
That works with good faith partners. The SNP are not good faith partners. They want an end to the union.
Its like teaming up with someone who says 'I want to ditch you and will do everything I can to ditch you, and whilst we're together i'm going to keep slagging you off', that's not the basis for a lasting relationship.
Aye, poor, old good faith partners BJ and the Tory party being let down by other folk..
I'm talking about a fundamental basis of support for the union continuing. The truth isn't as clear-cut as that true, but the point remains.
For the last 20+ years part of the fundamental basis of of support for the union continuing is HMG accepting and supporting devolution. BJ & co have changed that, and as ye sow so shall ye reap.
A push for independence is not devolution it's separatism. It's the SNP which aren't interested in devolution as the endgame.
As I have said repeatedly (and no doubt tediously), if not for Brexit for which Scotland voted more enthusiastically against than England for, the SNP's main ambition would be aiming for the biggest party in the next Holyrood election, support for indy would be a steady 40-45% and Devolution would be stumbling along in it's incremental 'here's a wee bit more power' way. More sowing and reaping I'm afraid.
Maybe if No Deal but little evidence for that now we have a Brexit deal.
The final Yougov Scottish independence poll before the 2016 EU referendum in March 2016 was Yes 41% No 48% and Undecided 12%.
The latest Yougov Scottish independence poll from March 2021 was Yes 41% No 43% and Undecided 14%.
it's impossible for this particular government to get a grip on this particular problem - rock bottom standards in public life - because it is led by an individual whose (very powerful) political brand is built upon encouraging the perception that such matters are "dull" and even a teeny bit "party pooping". So long as the public keep buying into the brand, keep rewarding its owner with their votes, there is no chance whatsoever of any progress on this. It will have to wait until there's a change at the top. Not any old change either. A big change.
BoZo's brand is built on cheating and lies.
The public are apparently fully supportive of that.
My point put rather more baldly!
I can tbf see the appeal of some facets of the Boris Brand. The positivity. The light touch. The vivid language. Not everything about it is toxic. But what is toxic - very - is the idea that a moral compass and a sense of public service is for po-faced dullards who take themselves and life too seriously. And sadly this comes with the product because it's integral to it.
You can't go to the store and say, "I'll have a Boris but one WITH a moral compass and sense of public service please."
That's not on the shelves.
Well it is though.
"A sense of public service" is typically used as a "redeeming" feature for the absolutely shit Prime Ministers we have had: Theresa May, Gordon Brown
The better Prime Ministers we've had - Boris himself, Dave, Blair - had a void where a moral compass and a sense of public service was meant to be, but they were far, far better Prime Ministers.
No appetite for a debate on "best PMs" but I do find it depressing if you've concluded that moral seriousness and a strong sense of public service is not only surplus to requirements but is actually something to be avoided. As it happens I believe you do genuinely feel this way - which illustrates very well the point I'm making. But I'd ask you to think seriously about it and if possible - with no pressure from me to admit it - realize that you are part of the problem.
The best description I heard of the role was “the guy you hire to do the things that you know need to be done but that you don’t want to know are being done”
That sounds like Luca Brasi, simpleton tool of the Don. I do hope we don't have any of that going on in this administration..All very well until it isn't and then you sleep with the fishes.
In terms of legacy — it took a good 10-20 years before the true consequences of Devolution have only started to become clear.
We will have to wait the same time period before the true consequences of Brexit start to become clear.
Labour introduced the Minimum Wage but it was the Conservatives who ran with it with the "National Living Wage" etc. Perhaps in 10 years it will be Labour pushing "Brexit" to a new level.
There's so many unknowns.
Blame the consequences of devolution on the Blair years if you want. Devolution worked reasonably well (NI excepted for traditional reasons) until Johnson came in with his boots on.
Oh cut the crap.
It worked so well that Scotland has had a dominant nationalist majority in Holyrood since long before Johnson came in.
Asymmetric devolution has made a pigs breakfast of the union for years now. There is no solution to the WLQ, Holyrood has power but no responsibility so can just blame Westminster for everything bad, there's no English devolution and so on and so forth. Its a mess and not one of Johnson's making - not one that anybody has a solution for because there is no solution.
No matter what you do England will forever be worth more than 80% of MPs because simply England outweighs all nations tremendously. Its not a stable situation for a federal structure.
The WLQ predates Holyrood by 20+ years.
There needs to be an English Parliament.
All four Parliaments then need to raise most of their own money.
Agreed. Really the only thing which will save 'the union' will be devo max, and the removing of this tension.
but devomax doesn't work when one country will always overwhelm the other 3 as it has 80% of the population so will always end up with 80% of the vote.
I like @Luckyguy1983 's suggestion to give the proportional equivalent of one vote to each devolved nation and one vote to the "UK" parliament. That means that England only ever needs the support of one other home nation to railroad anything through, reflecting its relative size and importance.
Not sure if that's what you intended, but kind of implicit that the 'UK' Parliament would always support England..
Well the 'UK' Parliament would be on a 1 person 1 vote basis so would usually reflect England's wishes.
And so we have the WLQ. On a fundamental head count, England always gets it's way.
Brexit would have been like this:
England - Yes Wales - Yes UK - Yes Scotland - No Northern Ireland - No
Brexit goes through constitutionally. If Wales had also voted against, it would not have passed, despite England.
That's an utter dogs dinner, you could have a situation where a vast majority of people want a policy but blockers in the other home nations have comparatively a vast higher level of influence.
Say on a vote we have:
80/20 England 45/55 Other countries.
I won't do the maths, but on that basis the vote would fail even if maybe 60-70% of overall votes were for it.
In fact, in a campaign, you wouldn't put any resources for 'no' into England, just go for the others, as the vote in England doesn't matter anymore.
Well yeah, that's federalism.
Which works when the numbers of federal states are high enough so not one can dominate. In the UK we would, have 5 states, and one which is 10 times as big as the closest other.
What country works on that basis?
The logical answer is to subdivide England. London has different interests to Cornwall, etc
Maybe but whether regional assemblies or an English Parliament it does not really matter as long as they have equivalent powers to those the Welsh Senedd, Holyrood and Stormont have now.
Then Westminster can just be the UK Parliament for major fiscal policy, foreign policy and defence and each home nation is responsible for most of its own domestic policy so the issue of being outvoted in UK general elections is less important and we have a truly Federal UK
I suspect those who are ‘backing Boris’ today have zero grasp of PR and the concept of message discipline.
Some clueless excuse-making today I’m afraid.
No, I don't think so.
The artisanal rock optimisation community threw a wobbly over the AZN announcement - I think this is in the same category, but of lower import.
Some people seem to think that the correct messaging is to hide the unwanted facts. Somehow. I don't think this works in the modern world. It certainly can't work when there is a fuckton of JSON available at https://api.coronavirus.data.gov.uk/v1/data
I think there are 2 choices - get out ahead of the stories or follow them.
In this case there will be more cases, there will probably be more hospitalisations and deaths as a result fo unlocking, than staying locked in a box until.... whenever.
This is unpalatable. I am reminded with the shock and anger with with which my personal position on sanctions on Apartheid era South Africa was greeted. Which was - I agreed with sanctions. And agreed with them, despite the certain fact that they would kill a number of South Africans. Which they did....
In terms of legacy — it took a good 10-20 years before the true consequences of Devolution have only started to become clear.
We will have to wait the same time period before the true consequences of Brexit start to become clear.
Labour introduced the Minimum Wage but it was the Conservatives who ran with it with the "National Living Wage" etc. Perhaps in 10 years it will be Labour pushing "Brexit" to a new level.
There's so many unknowns.
Blame the consequences of devolution on the Blair years if you want. Devolution worked reasonably well (NI excepted for traditional reasons) until Johnson came in with his boots on.
Oh cut the crap.
It worked so well that Scotland has had a dominant nationalist majority in Holyrood since long before Johnson came in.
Asymmetric devolution has made a pigs breakfast of the union for years now. There is no solution to the WLQ, Holyrood has power but no responsibility so can just blame Westminster for everything bad, there's no English devolution and so on and so forth. Its a mess and not one of Johnson's making - not one that anybody has a solution for because there is no solution.
No matter what you do England will forever be worth more than 80% of MPs because simply England outweighs all nations tremendously. Its not a stable situation for a federal structure.
The WLQ predates Holyrood by 20+ years.
There needs to be an English Parliament.
All four Parliaments then need to raise most of their own money.
Agreed. Really the only thing which will save 'the union' will be devo max, and the removing of this tension.
but devomax doesn't work when one country will always overwhelm the other 3 as it has 80% of the population so will always end up with 80% of the vote.
I like @Luckyguy1983 's suggestion to give the proportional equivalent of one vote to each devolved nation and one vote to the "UK" parliament. That means that England only ever needs the support of one other home nation to railroad anything through, reflecting its relative size and importance.
I think that's a terrible idea.
One person, one vote. If that means England can get its way then so be it, England is over 80% of the union and that's democracy.
If the other nations don't want England to be able to act unilaterally, then they need to be independent of England. Its perfectly viable.
Let's not pretend you don't have a vested interest here. You want English independence so will poo poo any other suggestion to the contrary.
Federalism requires compromise if the Union is to be preserved. You may not want the Union to be preserved but plenty of people do.
That works with good faith partners. The SNP are not good faith partners. They want an end to the union.
Its like teaming up with someone who says 'I want to ditch you and will do everything I can to ditch you, and whilst we're together i'm going to keep slagging you off', that's not the basis for a lasting relationship.
Aye, poor, old good faith partners BJ and the Tory party being let down by other folk..
I'm talking about a fundamental basis of support for the union continuing. The truth isn't as clear-cut as that true, but the point remains.
For the last 20+ years part of the fundamental basis of of support for the union continuing is HMG accepting and supporting devolution. BJ & co have changed that, and as ye sow so shall ye reap.
A push for independence is not devolution it's separatism. It's the SNP which aren't interested in devolution as the endgame.
As I have said repeatedly (and no doubt tediously), if not for Brexit for which Scotland voted more enthusiastically against than England for, the SNP's main ambition would be aiming for the biggest party in the next Holyrood election, support for indy would be a steady 40-45% and Devolution would be stumbling along in it's incremental 'here's a wee bit more power' way. More sowing and reaping I'm afraid.
Maybe if No Deal but little evidence for that now we have a Brexit deal.
The final Yougov Scottish independence poll before the 2016 EU referendum in March 2016 was Yes 41% No 48% and Undecided 12%.
The latest Yougov Scottish independence poll from March 2021 was Yes 41% No 43% and Undecided 14%.
... unless of course enough of the increase to 14% undecideds fall behind the 41% on referendum day.
Your poll tells us very little. Was your poll conducted by Trafalgar?
If the 12% of Undecideds before the EU referendum in 2016 had got behind the 41% of Yes voters then Yes also would have won too (though in 2014 most Undecideds went No).
So the poll tells us quite clearly there has been effectively no change at all in reality in Scots opinion on independence because of Brexit and confirms Brexit is not a material change in circumstances.
Maybe a No Deal Brexit might have been but we now have a UK and EU trade deal
Blame the consequences of devolution on the Blair years if you want. Devolution worked reasonably well (NI excepted for traditional reasons) until Johnson came in with his boots on.
Oh cut the crap.
It worked so well that Scotland has had a dominant nationalist majority in Holyrood since long before Johnson came in.
Asymmetric devolution has made a pigs breakfast of the union for years now. There is no solution to the WLQ, Holyrood has power but no responsibility so can just blame Westminster for everything bad, there's no English devolution and so on and so forth. Its a mess and not one of Johnson's making - not one that anybody has a solution for because there is no solution.
No matter what you do England will forever be worth more than 80% of MPs because simply England outweighs all nations tremendously. Its not a stable situation for a federal structure.
The WLQ predates Holyrood by 20+ years.
There needs to be an English Parliament.
All four Parliaments then need to raise most of their own money.
Agreed. Really the only thing which will save 'the union' will be devo max, and the removing of this tension.
but devomax doesn't work when one country will always overwhelm the other 3 as it has 80% of the population so will always end up with 80% of the vote.
I like @Luckyguy1983 's suggestion to give the proportional equivalent of one vote to each devolved nation and one vote to the "UK" parliament. That means that England only ever needs the support of one other home nation to railroad anything through, reflecting its relative size and importance.
Not sure if that's what you intended, but kind of implicit that the 'UK' Parliament would always support England..
Well the 'UK' Parliament would be on a 1 person 1 vote basis so would usually reflect England's wishes.
And so we have the WLQ. On a fundamental head count, England always gets it's way.
Brexit would have been like this:
England - Yes Wales - Yes UK - Yes Scotland - No Northern Ireland - No
Brexit goes through constitutionally. If Wales had also voted against, it would not have passed, despite England.
That's an utter dogs dinner, you could have a situation where a vast majority of people want a policy but blockers in the other home nations have comparatively a vast higher level of influence.
Say on a vote we have:
80/20 England 45/55 Other countries.
I won't do the maths, but on that basis the vote would fail even if maybe 60-70% of overall votes were for it.
In fact, in a campaign, you wouldn't put any resources for 'no' into England, just go for the others, as the vote in England doesn't matter anymore.
Well yeah, that's federalism.
Which works when the numbers of federal states are high enough so not one can dominate. In the UK we would, have 5 states, and one which is 10 times as big as the closest other.
What country works on that basis?
The logical answer is to subdivide England. London has different interests to Cornwall, etc
Cornwall has a population of less than 600,000. Are you lumping it in with Devon? I don't think they'll see that as any more of a convincing demos than England.
He's making the point that cases will inevitably rise as we unlock but that we have to accept it and carry on - isn't that exactly what you've been saying?
Boris Johnson has warned that coronavirus infections will rise as lockdown eases, but said there is no reason to change the proposed roadmap to end restrictions.
"People, I don't think, appreciate that it's the lockdown that has been overwhelmingly important in delivering this improvement," Mr Johnson said. "Of course the vaccination programme has helped, but the bulk of work in reducing disease has been done by the lockdown.
"So, as we unlock, the result will inevitably be that we will see more infection, sadly we will see more hospitalisation and deaths. People have just got to understand that."
The messaging is stupid though – did you watch the clip? He needs to engage brain before opening mouth.
it's impossible for this particular government to get a grip on this particular problem - rock bottom standards in public life - because it is led by an individual whose (very powerful) political brand is built upon encouraging the perception that such matters are "dull" and even a teeny bit "party pooping". So long as the public keep buying into the brand, keep rewarding its owner with their votes, there is no chance whatsoever of any progress on this. It will have to wait until there's a change at the top. Not any old change either. A big change.
BoZo's brand is built on cheating and lies.
The public are apparently fully supportive of that.
My point put rather more baldly!
I can tbf see the appeal of some facets of the Boris Brand. The positivity. The light touch. The vivid language. Not everything about it is toxic. But what is toxic - very - is the idea that a moral compass and a sense of public service is for po-faced dullards who take themselves and life too seriously. And sadly this comes with the product because it's integral to it.
You can't go to the store and say, "I'll have a Boris but one WITH a moral compass and sense of public service please."
That's not on the shelves.
But a big part of Boris's appeal is what he isn't. Jeremy Corbyn personified what a lot of voters distrust about the left as a whole. Now the cartoon bogeyman has gone, but a lot of what he represented is still there in 'the left'. The dislike of Britain and its history and its instincts and its culture. The instinct that it doesn't particularly like the British and would prefer they were rather different. The constant manufactured outrage. Now, you might well argue that Starmer has tried, with some success, to move away from this. But it doesn't strike voters as instinctive, and voters don't trust the party behind him. If Corbyn is the bogeyman, people aren't convinced that Starmer is not-Corbyn enough. I don't know, realistically, what more he could have done so far, but that's where we are. Boris is still getting a great deal of benefit from being convincingly not Corbyn.
This is a big part of Labour's challenge. The truth is Starmer has marginalized the hard left. The people and attitudes you're talking about are not influential now. But of course Team Tory will run this line for as long as it pays dividends. My feeling is that Starmer is all over this danger and it's right at the top of his list for GE24 to nullify it. Will he succeed? I think he will on this score. Which doesn't mean a Labour government, but it does mean a competitive election.
It's all about not scaring the horses, and Starmer doesn't scare the horses. Whether or not that is converted into a win all depends on how the land lies for the Government in a post- pandemic reality. One thing that I am heartened by is that the Government's ten point poll lead is very soft (as was Labou's poll parity last year).
Agreed. What I meant is that blatting the "unpatriotic" smear plus (related) looking like a credible PM to floating voters is the de minimus. You're in the game then and have a chance to win depending on various other factors (eg state of the economy).
I am more saying what Starmer thinks, btw, than what I think. But I reckon that's more interesting for people atm. Me, I'm holding off until this time next year before deciding whether the strategy looks a good one.
He is unfortunate in that he has found himself in the position of having had to agree with everything the government has proposed for the past year ("oh but we would have done it like this" doesn't cut it for political not-interesteds).
When the dust settles he will either be that bloke that held his nerve, maintained his smart haircut, and is ready to lead the country; or the one that didn't have any policies of his own and lined up with the govt at every opportunity.
I'm guessing that voters of the former view will likely be those who might not have voted Lab before, while those of the latter, those who probably have.
Strong(ish) take. We will, however, need to win the Red Wall back to have a chance of Starmer PM and so will need to tempt some of those class trai ... tory switchers up there (who did so because of Brexit/Jez) back into our parlour.
In terms of legacy — it took a good 10-20 years before the true consequences of Devolution have only started to become clear.
We will have to wait the same time period before the true consequences of Brexit start to become clear.
Labour introduced the Minimum Wage but it was the Conservatives who ran with it with the "National Living Wage" etc. Perhaps in 10 years it will be Labour pushing "Brexit" to a new level.
There's so many unknowns.
Blame the consequences of devolution on the Blair years if you want. Devolution worked reasonably well (NI excepted for traditional reasons) until Johnson came in with his boots on.
Oh cut the crap.
It worked so well that Scotland has had a dominant nationalist majority in Holyrood since long before Johnson came in.
Asymmetric devolution has made a pigs breakfast of the union for years now. There is no solution to the WLQ, Holyrood has power but no responsibility so can just blame Westminster for everything bad, there's no English devolution and so on and so forth. Its a mess and not one of Johnson's making - not one that anybody has a solution for because there is no solution.
No matter what you do England will forever be worth more than 80% of MPs because simply England outweighs all nations tremendously. Its not a stable situation for a federal structure.
The WLQ predates Holyrood by 20+ years.
There needs to be an English Parliament.
All four Parliaments then need to raise most of their own money.
Agreed. Really the only thing which will save 'the union' will be devo max, and the removing of this tension.
but devomax doesn't work when one country will always overwhelm the other 3 as it has 80% of the population so will always end up with 80% of the vote.
I like @Luckyguy1983 's suggestion to give the proportional equivalent of one vote to each devolved nation and one vote to the "UK" parliament. That means that England only ever needs the support of one other home nation to railroad anything through, reflecting its relative size and importance.
Not sure if that's what you intended, but kind of implicit that the 'UK' Parliament would always support England..
Well the 'UK' Parliament would be on a 1 person 1 vote basis so would usually reflect England's wishes.
And so we have the WLQ. On a fundamental head count, England always gets it's way.
Brexit would have been like this:
England - Yes Wales - Yes UK - Yes Scotland - No Northern Ireland - No
Brexit goes through constitutionally. If Wales had also voted against, it would not have passed, despite England.
That's an utter dogs dinner, you could have a situation where a vast majority of people want a policy but blockers in the other home nations have comparatively a vast higher level of influence.
Say on a vote we have:
80/20 England 45/55 Other countries.
I won't do the maths, but on that basis the vote would fail even if maybe 60-70% of overall votes were for it.
In fact, in a campaign, you wouldn't put any resources for 'no' into England, just go for the others, as the vote in England doesn't matter anymore.
Well yeah, that's federalism.
Which works when the numbers of federal states are high enough so not one can dominate. In the UK we would, have 5 states, and one which is 10 times as big as the closest other.
What country works on that basis?
The logical answer is to subdivide England. London has different interests to Cornwall, etc
But what would be the rationale behind such a move - what would be the desirable outcome that would be served? It would give England a bigger say within any Federal voting body, more in accordance with its population size, but it is that very thing that feeds nationalism in the home nations to start with, so what's the point of all the constitutional upheaval if England's (understandable) dominance is just going to be reinforced?
The really logical answer for me, is to create a rubber stamping initiative, the Council of the Isles, where despite lower populations, nations within the UK have a large 'chunk' of power in making the big decisions taken by the UK. Setting population numbers to one side, it is a fact that the ties of UK nationhood and loyalty are now weaker, that the UK now consists of four strong national polities which need to find a new way to co-operate together to benefit each other. It is not unheard of - in the EU for example, where smaller nations still have veto power - Denmark doesn't have less of a veto because its population is so much smaller than Germany's.
Blame the consequences of devolution on the Blair years if you want. Devolution worked reasonably well (NI excepted for traditional reasons) until Johnson came in with his boots on.
Oh cut the crap.
It worked so well that Scotland has had a dominant nationalist majority in Holyrood since long before Johnson came in.
Asymmetric devolution has made a pigs breakfast of the union for years now. There is no solution to the WLQ, Holyrood has power but no responsibility so can just blame Westminster for everything bad, there's no English devolution and so on and so forth. Its a mess and not one of Johnson's making - not one that anybody has a solution for because there is no solution.
No matter what you do England will forever be worth more than 80% of MPs because simply England outweighs all nations tremendously. Its not a stable situation for a federal structure.
The WLQ predates Holyrood by 20+ years.
There needs to be an English Parliament.
All four Parliaments then need to raise most of their own money.
Agreed. Really the only thing which will save 'the union' will be devo max, and the removing of this tension.
but devomax doesn't work when one country will always overwhelm the other 3 as it has 80% of the population so will always end up with 80% of the vote.
I like @Luckyguy1983 's suggestion to give the proportional equivalent of one vote to each devolved nation and one vote to the "UK" parliament. That means that England only ever needs the support of one other home nation to railroad anything through, reflecting its relative size and importance.
Not sure if that's what you intended, but kind of implicit that the 'UK' Parliament would always support England..
Well the 'UK' Parliament would be on a 1 person 1 vote basis so would usually reflect England's wishes.
And so we have the WLQ. On a fundamental head count, England always gets it's way.
Brexit would have been like this:
England - Yes Wales - Yes UK - Yes Scotland - No Northern Ireland - No
Brexit goes through constitutionally. If Wales had also voted against, it would not have passed, despite England.
That's an utter dogs dinner, you could have a situation where a vast majority of people want a policy but blockers in the other home nations have comparatively a vast higher level of influence.
Say on a vote we have:
80/20 England 45/55 Other countries.
I won't do the maths, but on that basis the vote would fail even if maybe 60-70% of overall votes were for it.
In fact, in a campaign, you wouldn't put any resources for 'no' into England, just go for the others, as the vote in England doesn't matter anymore.
Well yeah, that's federalism.
Which works when the numbers of federal states are high enough so not one can dominate. In the UK we would, have 5 states, and one which is 10 times as big as the closest other.
What country works on that basis?
The logical answer is to subdivide England. London has different interests to Cornwall, etc
Cornwall has a population of less than 600,000. Are you lumping it in with Devon? I don't think they'll see that as any more of a convincing demos than England.
A SW region as per the old European Parliament elections would be more sensible, Cornwall already has its own unitary council
I suspect those who are ‘backing Boris’ today have zero grasp of PR and the concept of message discipline.
Some clueless excuse-making today I’m afraid.
No, I don't think so.
The artisanal rock optimisation community threw a wobbly over the AZN announcement - I think this is in the same category, but of lower import.
Some people seem to think that the correct messaging is to hide the unwanted facts. Somehow. I don't think this works in the modern world. It certainly can't work when there is a fuckton of JSON available at https://api.coronavirus.data.gov.uk/v1/data
I think there are 2 choices - get out ahead of the stories or follow them.
In this case there will be more cases, there will probably be more hospitalisations and deaths as a result fo unlocking, than staying locked in a box until.... whenever.
This is unpalatable. I am reminded with the shock and anger with with which my personal position on sanctions on Apartheid era South Africa was greeted. Which was - I agreed with sanctions. And agreed with them, despite the certain fact that they would kill a number of South Africans. Which they did....
I agree. Public health messaging is not the same as commercial product advertising or even corporate PR. The essence is trust, and trust over time and over multiple issues. Which means, as you said, getting out in front of thorny issues and ensuring that there is no vacuum for fake news to fill.
Here, I see no real problem with what Boris said. It is a simple fact that in the 3rd wave infections and subsequent hospitalizations and death did fall primarily because of lockdown. Vaccinations did help, and will bear the brunt of preventing a 4th wave, but we are not at the stage where we can totally get rid of all the lockdown restrictions.
Given that the NHS website crashed today with too many people trying to enlist for vaccines, getting out the message to get vaccinated is not the problem. See the sights of London from yesterday, getting the unvaccinated to continue with a modicum of social distancing, hand and respiratory hygiene until we have reached herd immunity IS a problem.
Johnson's messaging seems to me to have had the right prioritization of messages.
In terms of legacy — it took a good 10-20 years before the true consequences of Devolution have only started to become clear.
We will have to wait the same time period before the true consequences of Brexit start to become clear.
Labour introduced the Minimum Wage but it was the Conservatives who ran with it with the "National Living Wage" etc. Perhaps in 10 years it will be Labour pushing "Brexit" to a new level.
There's so many unknowns.
Blame the consequences of devolution on the Blair years if you want. Devolution worked reasonably well (NI excepted for traditional reasons) until Johnson came in with his boots on.
Oh cut the crap.
It worked so well that Scotland has had a dominant nationalist majority in Holyrood since long before Johnson came in.
Asymmetric devolution has made a pigs breakfast of the union for years now. There is no solution to the WLQ, Holyrood has power but no responsibility so can just blame Westminster for everything bad, there's no English devolution and so on and so forth. Its a mess and not one of Johnson's making - not one that anybody has a solution for because there is no solution.
No matter what you do England will forever be worth more than 80% of MPs because simply England outweighs all nations tremendously. Its not a stable situation for a federal structure.
The WLQ predates Holyrood by 20+ years.
There needs to be an English Parliament.
All four Parliaments then need to raise most of their own money.
Agreed. Really the only thing which will save 'the union' will be devo max, and the removing of this tension.
but devomax doesn't work when one country will always overwhelm the other 3 as it has 80% of the population so will always end up with 80% of the vote.
I like @Luckyguy1983 's suggestion to give the proportional equivalent of one vote to each devolved nation and one vote to the "UK" parliament. That means that England only ever needs the support of one other home nation to railroad anything through, reflecting its relative size and importance.
I think that's a terrible idea.
One person, one vote. If that means England can get its way then so be it, England is over 80% of the union and that's democracy.
If the other nations don't want England to be able to act unilaterally, then they need to be independent of England. Its perfectly viable.
I think the problem is the idea of England as a monolith. If you had devolution to English regions then you would be able to see the differences within England between the South-East and the North-West.
There seems quite a strong feeling within parts of England for decisions to be devolved away from London.
If the largest constituent part of the UK is Greater London, then it's much harder for Scottish Nationalists to create a grievance about being bullied by a colonialist England.
Actually, if England is divided into regions, it can always outvote the other home nations easily, and this is going to result in far more grievance amongst the home nations, because it enshrines English dominance based on population in exactly the same way that WM does currently.
But the point is that the divisions within England are greater than those between England and Scotland.
So you wouldn't routinely have England voting one way and Scotland the other. Sometimes Scotland would have support from London, Yorkshire, or wherever.
He's making the point that cases will inevitably rise as we unlock but that we have to accept it and carry on - isn't that exactly what you've been saying?
Boris Johnson has warned that coronavirus infections will rise as lockdown eases, but said there is no reason to change the proposed roadmap to end restrictions.
"People, I don't think, appreciate that it's the lockdown that has been overwhelmingly important in delivering this improvement," Mr Johnson said. "Of course the vaccination programme has helped, but the bulk of work in reducing disease has been done by the lockdown.
"So, as we unlock, the result will inevitably be that we will see more infection, sadly we will see more hospitalisation and deaths. People have just got to understand that."
The messaging is stupid though – did you watch the clip? He needs to engage brain before opening mouth.
it's impossible for this particular government to get a grip on this particular problem - rock bottom standards in public life - because it is led by an individual whose (very powerful) political brand is built upon encouraging the perception that such matters are "dull" and even a teeny bit "party pooping". So long as the public keep buying into the brand, keep rewarding its owner with their votes, there is no chance whatsoever of any progress on this. It will have to wait until there's a change at the top. Not any old change either. A big change.
BoZo's brand is built on cheating and lies.
The public are apparently fully supportive of that.
My point put rather more baldly!
I can tbf see the appeal of some facets of the Boris Brand. The positivity. The light touch. The vivid language. Not everything about it is toxic. But what is toxic - very - is the idea that a moral compass and a sense of public service is for po-faced dullards who take themselves and life too seriously. And sadly this comes with the product because it's integral to it.
You can't go to the store and say, "I'll have a Boris but one WITH a moral compass and sense of public service please."
That's not on the shelves.
But a big part of Boris's appeal is what he isn't. Jeremy Corbyn personified what a lot of voters distrust about the left as a whole. Now the cartoon bogeyman has gone, but a lot of what he represented is still there in 'the left'. The dislike of Britain and its history and its instincts and its culture. The instinct that it doesn't particularly like the British and would prefer they were rather different. The constant manufactured outrage. Now, you might well argue that Starmer has tried, with some success, to move away from this. But it doesn't strike voters as instinctive, and voters don't trust the party behind him. If Corbyn is the bogeyman, people aren't convinced that Starmer is not-Corbyn enough. I don't know, realistically, what more he could have done so far, but that's where we are. Boris is still getting a great deal of benefit from being convincingly not Corbyn.
This is a big part of Labour's challenge. The truth is Starmer has marginalized the hard left. The people and attitudes you're talking about are not influential now. But of course Team Tory will run this line for as long as it pays dividends. My feeling is that Starmer is all over this danger and it's right at the top of his list for GE24 to nullify it. Will he succeed? I think he will on this score. Which doesn't mean a Labour government, but it does mean a competitive election.
It's all about not scaring the horses, and Starmer doesn't scare the horses. Whether or not that is converted into a win all depends on how the land lies for the Government in a post- pandemic reality. One thing that I am heartened by is that the Government's ten point poll lead is very soft (as was Labou's poll parity last year).
Agreed. What I meant is that blatting the "unpatriotic" smear plus (related) looking like a credible PM to floating voters is the de minimus. You're in the game then and have a chance to win depending on various other factors (eg state of the economy).
I am more saying what Starmer thinks, btw, than what I think. But I reckon that's more interesting for people atm. Me, I'm holding off until this time next year before deciding whether the strategy looks a good one.
He is unfortunate in that he has found himself in the position of having had to agree with everything the government has proposed for the past year ("oh but we would have done it like this" doesn't cut it for political not-interesteds).
When the dust settles he will either be that bloke that held his nerve, maintained his smart haircut, and is ready to lead the country; or the one that didn't have any policies of his own and lined up with the govt at every opportunity.
I'm guessing that voters of the former view will likely be those who might not have voted Lab before, while those of the latter, those who probably have.
Strong(ish) take. We will, however, need to win the Red Wall back to have a chance of Starmer PM and so will need to tempt some of those class trai ... tory switchers up there (who did so because of Brexit/Jez) back into our parlour.
How homogenous is the Red Wall? They have already lost their cherry and have found no babies have been eaten by the Cons. They might even have found that aside from two admittedly huge exogenous events their lives haven't changed that much from 1997-2010 hence what was all the fuss about.
Is Starmer someone to go into the trenches, pint of best in hand (or glass of Picpoul for that matter) and win them back? Because as you said, the Red Wall will need to be won back; I'm not sure it will drift back of its own accord.
I suspect those who are ‘backing Boris’ today have zero grasp of PR and the concept of message discipline.
Some clueless excuse-making today I’m afraid.
No, I don't think so.
The artisanal rock optimisation community threw a wobbly over the AZN announcement - I think this is in the same category, but of lower import.
Some people seem to think that the correct messaging is to hide the unwanted facts. Somehow. I don't think this works in the modern world. It certainly can't work when there is a fuckton of JSON available at https://api.coronavirus.data.gov.uk/v1/data
I think there are 2 choices - get out ahead of the stories or follow them.
In this case there will be more cases, there will probably be more hospitalisations and deaths as a result fo unlocking, than staying locked in a box until.... whenever.
This is unpalatable. I am reminded with the shock and anger with with which my personal position on sanctions on Apartheid era South Africa was greeted. Which was - I agreed with sanctions. And agreed with them, despite the certain fact that they would kill a number of South Africans. Which they did....
I agree. Public health messaging is not the same as commercial product advertising or even corporate PR. The essence is trust, and trust over time and over multiple issues. Which means, as you said, getting out in front of thorny issues and ensuring that there is no vacuum for fake news to fill.
Here, I see no real problem with what Boris said. It is a simple fact that in the 3rd wave infections and subsequent hospitalizations and death did fall primarily because of lockdown. Vaccinations did help, and will bear the brunt of preventing a 4th wave, but we are not at the stage where we can totally get rid of all the lockdown restrictions.
Given that the NHS website crashed today with too many people trying to enlist for vaccines, getting out the message to get vaccinated is not the problem. See the sights of London from yesterday, getting the unvaccinated to continue with a modicum of social distancing, hand and respiratory hygiene until we have reached herd immunity IS a problem.
Johnson's messaging seems to me to have had the right prioritization of messages.
Was it perfectly worded, no. Was it ok, yes.
It's simpler than that
In a couple of weeks, the numbers will either slow their decline or go up a bit. This is pretty much certain. Cue howling.
I'm quite sure there is a pre-written article for the Guardian demanding everyone be welded in individual boxes *NOW*, in a drawer, waiting.
The government needs to be in the place of "That thing we said would happen. It happened. There is also a film at 11."
In terms of legacy — it took a good 10-20 years before the true consequences of Devolution have only started to become clear.
We will have to wait the same time period before the true consequences of Brexit start to become clear.
Labour introduced the Minimum Wage but it was the Conservatives who ran with it with the "National Living Wage" etc. Perhaps in 10 years it will be Labour pushing "Brexit" to a new level.
There's so many unknowns.
Blame the consequences of devolution on the Blair years if you want. Devolution worked reasonably well (NI excepted for traditional reasons) until Johnson came in with his boots on.
Oh cut the crap.
It worked so well that Scotland has had a dominant nationalist majority in Holyrood since long before Johnson came in.
Asymmetric devolution has made a pigs breakfast of the union for years now. There is no solution to the WLQ, Holyrood has power but no responsibility so can just blame Westminster for everything bad, there's no English devolution and so on and so forth. Its a mess and not one of Johnson's making - not one that anybody has a solution for because there is no solution.
No matter what you do England will forever be worth more than 80% of MPs because simply England outweighs all nations tremendously. Its not a stable situation for a federal structure.
The WLQ predates Holyrood by 20+ years.
There needs to be an English Parliament.
All four Parliaments then need to raise most of their own money.
Agreed. Really the only thing which will save 'the union' will be devo max, and the removing of this tension.
but devomax doesn't work when one country will always overwhelm the other 3 as it has 80% of the population so will always end up with 80% of the vote.
I like @Luckyguy1983 's suggestion to give the proportional equivalent of one vote to each devolved nation and one vote to the "UK" parliament. That means that England only ever needs the support of one other home nation to railroad anything through, reflecting its relative size and importance.
Not sure if that's what you intended, but kind of implicit that the 'UK' Parliament would always support England..
Well the 'UK' Parliament would be on a 1 person 1 vote basis so would usually reflect England's wishes.
And so we have the WLQ. On a fundamental head count, England always gets it's way.
Brexit would have been like this:
England - Yes Wales - Yes UK - Yes Scotland - No Northern Ireland - No
Brexit goes through constitutionally. If Wales had also voted against, it would not have passed, despite England.
That's an utter dogs dinner, you could have a situation where a vast majority of people want a policy but blockers in the other home nations have comparatively a vast higher level of influence.
Say on a vote we have:
80/20 England 45/55 Other countries.
I won't do the maths, but on that basis the vote would fail even if maybe 60-70% of overall votes were for it.
In fact, in a campaign, you wouldn't put any resources for 'no' into England, just go for the others, as the vote in England doesn't matter anymore.
Well yeah, that's federalism.
Which works when the numbers of federal states are high enough so not one can dominate. In the UK we would, have 5 states, and one which is 10 times as big as the closest other.
What country works on that basis?
The logical answer is to subdivide England. London has different interests to Cornwall, etc
It would work if the regional devolution was at a similar level to Wales, so that Westminster doesn't become irrelevant. Unfortunately, getting powers back from Scotland to make the whole thing fair is not going to be easy.
The main problem is money. When you have a powerhouse of a city like London, and under developed regions like the SW/NE/NW etc theres an imbalance.
Presumably the move would allow Scotland to raise it's own money. Do that in the regions of England, and you would have huge fiscal transfers between regions, which then couldn't be in control of that spending in terms of absolute levels.
That would continue to create huge internal stresses now for the regions, not just between Scotland and England.
"There is something rather melancholy about Hull University’s decision not to dock marks for spelling mistakes because requiring good English could be seen as “homogenous North European, white, male, elite.”
Hull is one of several universities that are adopting “inclusive assessments”. These are designed to narrow the attainment gaps between different ethnic groups in higher education. Hull insisted that dropping the requirement for a high level of proficiency in written and spoken English will “challenge the status quo”. "
In terms of legacy — it took a good 10-20 years before the true consequences of Devolution have only started to become clear.
We will have to wait the same time period before the true consequences of Brexit start to become clear.
Labour introduced the Minimum Wage but it was the Conservatives who ran with it with the "National Living Wage" etc. Perhaps in 10 years it will be Labour pushing "Brexit" to a new level.
There's so many unknowns.
Blame the consequences of devolution on the Blair years if you want. Devolution worked reasonably well (NI excepted for traditional reasons) until Johnson came in with his boots on.
Oh cut the crap.
It worked so well that Scotland has had a dominant nationalist majority in Holyrood since long before Johnson came in.
Asymmetric devolution has made a pigs breakfast of the union for years now. There is no solution to the WLQ, Holyrood has power but no responsibility so can just blame Westminster for everything bad, there's no English devolution and so on and so forth. Its a mess and not one of Johnson's making - not one that anybody has a solution for because there is no solution.
No matter what you do England will forever be worth more than 80% of MPs because simply England outweighs all nations tremendously. Its not a stable situation for a federal structure.
The WLQ predates Holyrood by 20+ years.
There needs to be an English Parliament.
All four Parliaments then need to raise most of their own money.
Agreed. Really the only thing which will save 'the union' will be devo max, and the removing of this tension.
but devomax doesn't work when one country will always overwhelm the other 3 as it has 80% of the population so will always end up with 80% of the vote.
I like @Luckyguy1983 's suggestion to give the proportional equivalent of one vote to each devolved nation and one vote to the "UK" parliament. That means that England only ever needs the support of one other home nation to railroad anything through, reflecting its relative size and importance.
I think that's a terrible idea.
One person, one vote. If that means England can get its way then so be it, England is over 80% of the union and that's democracy.
If the other nations don't want England to be able to act unilaterally, then they need to be independent of England. Its perfectly viable.
I think the problem is the idea of England as a monolith. If you had devolution to English regions then you would be able to see the differences within England between the South-East and the North-West.
There seems quite a strong feeling within parts of England for decisions to be devolved away from London.
If the largest constituent part of the UK is Greater London, then it's much harder for Scottish Nationalists to create a grievance about being bullied by a colonialist England.
Actually, if England is divided into regions, it can always outvote the other home nations easily, and this is going to result in far more grievance amongst the home nations, because it enshrines English dominance based on population in exactly the same way that WM does currently.
But the point is that the divisions within England are greater than those between England and Scotland.
So you wouldn't routinely have England voting one way and Scotland the other. Sometimes Scotland would have support from London, Yorkshire, or wherever.
Undoubtedly, that could happen, or it could not. If you're really putting Scotland on the same level as Yorkshire, you are playing right into the nationalists' hands - how many Yorkshires are there in England? 20? That makes Scotland a tiny regional minnow in the overall scheme of things.
I don't think England wants to be carved up, despite repeated encouragement to do so, mainly from EU-federalists. It is a frequently offered answer to which nobody is actually asking a question.
Blame the consequences of devolution on the Blair years if you want. Devolution worked reasonably well (NI excepted for traditional reasons) until Johnson came in with his boots on.
Oh cut the crap.
It worked so well that Scotland has had a dominant nationalist majority in Holyrood since long before Johnson came in.
Asymmetric devolution has made a pigs breakfast of the union for years now. There is no solution to the WLQ, Holyrood has power but no responsibility so can just blame Westminster for everything bad, there's no English devolution and so on and so forth. Its a mess and not one of Johnson's making - not one that anybody has a solution for because there is no solution.
No matter what you do England will forever be worth more than 80% of MPs because simply England outweighs all nations tremendously. Its not a stable situation for a federal structure.
The WLQ predates Holyrood by 20+ years.
There needs to be an English Parliament.
All four Parliaments then need to raise most of their own money.
Agreed. Really the only thing which will save 'the union' will be devo max, and the removing of this tension.
but devomax doesn't work when one country will always overwhelm the other 3 as it has 80% of the population so will always end up with 80% of the vote.
I like @Luckyguy1983 's suggestion to give the proportional equivalent of one vote to each devolved nation and one vote to the "UK" parliament. That means that England only ever needs the support of one other home nation to railroad anything through, reflecting its relative size and importance.
Not sure if that's what you intended, but kind of implicit that the 'UK' Parliament would always support England..
Well the 'UK' Parliament would be on a 1 person 1 vote basis so would usually reflect England's wishes.
And so we have the WLQ. On a fundamental head count, England always gets it's way.
Brexit would have been like this:
England - Yes Wales - Yes UK - Yes Scotland - No Northern Ireland - No
Brexit goes through constitutionally. If Wales had also voted against, it would not have passed, despite England.
That's an utter dogs dinner, you could have a situation where a vast majority of people want a policy but blockers in the other home nations have comparatively a vast higher level of influence.
Say on a vote we have:
80/20 England 45/55 Other countries.
I won't do the maths, but on that basis the vote would fail even if maybe 60-70% of overall votes were for it.
In fact, in a campaign, you wouldn't put any resources for 'no' into England, just go for the others, as the vote in England doesn't matter anymore.
Well yeah, that's federalism.
Which works when the numbers of federal states are high enough so not one can dominate. In the UK we would, have 5 states, and one which is 10 times as big as the closest other.
What country works on that basis?
The logical answer is to subdivide England. London has different interests to Cornwall, etc
Cornwall has a population of less than 600,000. Are you lumping it in with Devon? I don't think they'll see that as any more of a convincing demos than England.
Just by way of reference, Cornwall's population is larger than Wyoming's. California's population is 39M+. If one moved to a federal system, there is no reason that populations of the political divisions would have to be even similar, provided no one (or, in my view, 3 or 4) states could boss the rest around.
For that to work, London, at around 9M, would be the largest federal unit.
"There is something rather melancholy about Hull University’s decision not to dock marks for spelling mistakes because requiring good English could be seen as “homogenous North European, white, male, elite.”
Hull is one of several universities that are adopting “inclusive assessments”. These are designed to narrow the attainment gaps between different ethnic groups in higher education. Hull insisted that dropping the requirement for a high level of proficiency in written and spoken English will “challenge the status quo”. "
In terms of legacy — it took a good 10-20 years before the true consequences of Devolution have only started to become clear.
We will have to wait the same time period before the true consequences of Brexit start to become clear.
Labour introduced the Minimum Wage but it was the Conservatives who ran with it with the "National Living Wage" etc. Perhaps in 10 years it will be Labour pushing "Brexit" to a new level.
There's so many unknowns.
Blame the consequences of devolution on the Blair years if you want. Devolution worked reasonably well (NI excepted for traditional reasons) until Johnson came in with his boots on.
Oh cut the crap.
It worked so well that Scotland has had a dominant nationalist majority in Holyrood since long before Johnson came in.
Asymmetric devolution has made a pigs breakfast of the union for years now. There is no solution to the WLQ, Holyrood has power but no responsibility so can just blame Westminster for everything bad, there's no English devolution and so on and so forth. Its a mess and not one of Johnson's making - not one that anybody has a solution for because there is no solution.
No matter what you do England will forever be worth more than 80% of MPs because simply England outweighs all nations tremendously. Its not a stable situation for a federal structure.
The WLQ predates Holyrood by 20+ years.
There needs to be an English Parliament.
All four Parliaments then need to raise most of their own money.
Agreed. Really the only thing which will save 'the union' will be devo max, and the removing of this tension.
but devomax doesn't work when one country will always overwhelm the other 3 as it has 80% of the population so will always end up with 80% of the vote.
I like @Luckyguy1983 's suggestion to give the proportional equivalent of one vote to each devolved nation and one vote to the "UK" parliament. That means that England only ever needs the support of one other home nation to railroad anything through, reflecting its relative size and importance.
I think that's a terrible idea.
One person, one vote. If that means England can get its way then so be it, England is over 80% of the union and that's democracy.
If the other nations don't want England to be able to act unilaterally, then they need to be independent of England. Its perfectly viable.
I think the problem is the idea of England as a monolith. If you had devolution to English regions then you would be able to see the differences within England between the South-East and the North-West.
There seems quite a strong feeling within parts of England for decisions to be devolved away from London.
If the largest constituent part of the UK is Greater London, then it's much harder for Scottish Nationalists to create a grievance about being bullied by a colonialist England.
Actually, if England is divided into regions, it can always outvote the other home nations easily, and this is going to result in far more grievance amongst the home nations, because it enshrines English dominance based on population in exactly the same way that WM does currently.
But you would at least have the situation where the Midlands, North and Scotland could vote for something they wanted to the extent they got 50% of the vote.
Perhaps, but Scottish MPs could collabarate with their English colleagues do the same at the moment and get their way in the House of Commons. That's the theory, but it's far more difficult in practise, and doesn't stop anyone having a grievance.
The difference is that now they are outvoted by "England", but that is hiding that they are really being outvoted by parts of England.
He's making the point that cases will inevitably rise as we unlock but that we have to accept it and carry on - isn't that exactly what you've been saying?
Boris Johnson has warned that coronavirus infections will rise as lockdown eases, but said there is no reason to change the proposed roadmap to end restrictions.
"People, I don't think, appreciate that it's the lockdown that has been overwhelmingly important in delivering this improvement," Mr Johnson said. "Of course the vaccination programme has helped, but the bulk of work in reducing disease has been done by the lockdown.
"So, as we unlock, the result will inevitably be that we will see more infection, sadly we will see more hospitalisation and deaths. People have just got to understand that."
The messaging is stupid though – did you watch the clip? He needs to engage brain before opening mouth.
it's impossible for this particular government to get a grip on this particular problem - rock bottom standards in public life - because it is led by an individual whose (very powerful) political brand is built upon encouraging the perception that such matters are "dull" and even a teeny bit "party pooping". So long as the public keep buying into the brand, keep rewarding its owner with their votes, there is no chance whatsoever of any progress on this. It will have to wait until there's a change at the top. Not any old change either. A big change.
BoZo's brand is built on cheating and lies.
The public are apparently fully supportive of that.
My point put rather more baldly!
I can tbf see the appeal of some facets of the Boris Brand. The positivity. The light touch. The vivid language. Not everything about it is toxic. But what is toxic - very - is the idea that a moral compass and a sense of public service is for po-faced dullards who take themselves and life too seriously. And sadly this comes with the product because it's integral to it.
You can't go to the store and say, "I'll have a Boris but one WITH a moral compass and sense of public service please."
That's not on the shelves.
But a big part of Boris's appeal is what he isn't. Jeremy Corbyn personified what a lot of voters distrust about the left as a whole. Now the cartoon bogeyman has gone, but a lot of what he represented is still there in 'the left'. The dislike of Britain and its history and its instincts and its culture. The instinct that it doesn't particularly like the British and would prefer they were rather different. The constant manufactured outrage. Now, you might well argue that Starmer has tried, with some success, to move away from this. But it doesn't strike voters as instinctive, and voters don't trust the party behind him. If Corbyn is the bogeyman, people aren't convinced that Starmer is not-Corbyn enough. I don't know, realistically, what more he could have done so far, but that's where we are. Boris is still getting a great deal of benefit from being convincingly not Corbyn.
This is a big part of Labour's challenge. The truth is Starmer has marginalized the hard left. The people and attitudes you're talking about are not influential now. But of course Team Tory will run this line for as long as it pays dividends. My feeling is that Starmer is all over this danger and it's right at the top of his list for GE24 to nullify it. Will he succeed? I think he will on this score. Which doesn't mean a Labour government, but it does mean a competitive election.
It's all about not scaring the horses, and Starmer doesn't scare the horses. Whether or not that is converted into a win all depends on how the land lies for the Government in a post- pandemic reality. One thing that I am heartened by is that the Government's ten point poll lead is very soft (as was Labou's poll parity last year).
Agreed. What I meant is that blatting the "unpatriotic" smear plus (related) looking like a credible PM to floating voters is the de minimus. You're in the game then and have a chance to win depending on various other factors (eg state of the economy).
I am more saying what Starmer thinks, btw, than what I think. But I reckon that's more interesting for people atm. Me, I'm holding off until this time next year before deciding whether the strategy looks a good one.
He is unfortunate in that he has found himself in the position of having had to agree with everything the government has proposed for the past year ("oh but we would have done it like this" doesn't cut it for political not-interesteds).
When the dust settles he will either be that bloke that held his nerve, maintained his smart haircut, and is ready to lead the country; or the one that didn't have any policies of his own and lined up with the govt at every opportunity.
I'm guessing that voters of the former view will likely be those who might not have voted Lab before, while those of the latter, those who probably have.
Strong(ish) take. We will, however, need to win the Red Wall back to have a chance of Starmer PM and so will need to tempt some of those class trai ... tory switchers up there (who did so because of Brexit/Jez) back into our parlour.
How homogenous is the Red Wall? They have already lost their cherry and have found no babies have been eaten by the Cons. They might even have found that aside from two admittedly huge exogenous events their lives haven't changed that much from 1997-2010 hence what was all the fuss about.
Is Starmer someone to go into the trenches, pint of best in hand (or glass of Picpoul for that matter) and win them back? Because as you said, the Red Wall will need to be won back; I'm not sure it will drift back of its own accord.
I honestly don't know if he has the right stuff for doing it. I don't even have much of a hunch about that at this point. I'm not on the "Starmer too dull to win" train though. I'm deferring judgment till this time next year.
In terms of legacy — it took a good 10-20 years before the true consequences of Devolution have only started to become clear.
We will have to wait the same time period before the true consequences of Brexit start to become clear.
Labour introduced the Minimum Wage but it was the Conservatives who ran with it with the "National Living Wage" etc. Perhaps in 10 years it will be Labour pushing "Brexit" to a new level.
There's so many unknowns.
Blame the consequences of devolution on the Blair years if you want. Devolution worked reasonably well (NI excepted for traditional reasons) until Johnson came in with his boots on.
Oh cut the crap.
It worked so well that Scotland has had a dominant nationalist majority in Holyrood since long before Johnson came in.
Asymmetric devolution has made a pigs breakfast of the union for years now. There is no solution to the WLQ, Holyrood has power but no responsibility so can just blame Westminster for everything bad, there's no English devolution and so on and so forth. Its a mess and not one of Johnson's making - not one that anybody has a solution for because there is no solution.
No matter what you do England will forever be worth more than 80% of MPs because simply England outweighs all nations tremendously. Its not a stable situation for a federal structure.
The WLQ predates Holyrood by 20+ years.
There needs to be an English Parliament.
All four Parliaments then need to raise most of their own money.
Agreed. Really the only thing which will save 'the union' will be devo max, and the removing of this tension.
but devomax doesn't work when one country will always overwhelm the other 3 as it has 80% of the population so will always end up with 80% of the vote.
I like @Luckyguy1983 's suggestion to give the proportional equivalent of one vote to each devolved nation and one vote to the "UK" parliament. That means that England only ever needs the support of one other home nation to railroad anything through, reflecting its relative size and importance.
I think that's a terrible idea.
One person, one vote. If that means England can get its way then so be it, England is over 80% of the union and that's democracy.
If the other nations don't want England to be able to act unilaterally, then they need to be independent of England. Its perfectly viable.
I think the problem is the idea of England as a monolith. If you had devolution to English regions then you would be able to see the differences within England between the South-East and the North-West.
There seems quite a strong feeling within parts of England for decisions to be devolved away from London.
If the largest constituent part of the UK is Greater London, then it's much harder for Scottish Nationalists to create a grievance about being bullied by a colonialist England.
Actually, if England is divided into regions, it can always outvote the other home nations easily, and this is going to result in far more grievance amongst the home nations, because it enshrines English dominance based on population in exactly the same way that WM does currently.
But you would at least have the situation where the Midlands, North and Scotland could vote for something they wanted to the extent they got 50% of the vote.
Perhaps, but Scottish MPs could collabarate with their English colleagues do the same at the moment and get their way in the House of Commons. That's the theory, but it's far more difficult in practise, and doesn't stop anyone having a grievance.
The difference is that now they are outvoted by "England", but that is hiding that they are really being outvoted by parts of England.
Not at all - each MP represents a British constituency, there is not an 'England' bloc in the Commons.
Comments
Not doing the deal with Novavax is going to hurt a lot and it's really frustrating because it's the people who will suffer through more death and lockdown while the politicians will get away with it.
Where's this "bar" of yours set?
More sowing and reaping I'm afraid.
The biggest loser from this is the EU who are very dependent on this for their summer targets for "full vaccination". It would be difficult for the same countries restricting AZ use to older people to also not do it for J&J.
There seems quite a strong feeling within parts of England for decisions to be devolved away from London.
If the largest constituent part of the UK is Greater London, then it's much harder for Scottish Nationalists to create a grievance about being bullied by a colonialist England.
People who pretend to be lilywhite are dishonest shysters. People who own their transgressions are oddly more honest.
Since Boris was a student of Classics, there's a Classics religious parallel to this. The Christian religion that dominate in society portrays God as this supreme, infallible being. But in antiquity the pantheon of gods were all openly flawed. Greco-Roman gods were every bit as flawed as humans.
Why shouldn't our politicians be just as flawed as us "mere mortals"? At least then they're not covering it up.
If we're at an R of 0.8 now, we'd quite possibly be about twice that without the current levels of antibodies from infections and vaccinations (vaccination and acquired having a suppressive effect of about a factor of 2).
So something that would have an effect of adding 0.3-0.4 (and taking us to around 2.0 without any immunity) would still keep us below(ish) 1.0
That is, the increase to R is dampened significantly.
And every week, that suppressive effect is slowly increasing.,
The messaging sucks. If you can't see that I suggest a new pair of glasses.
The only thing he needs to say is: GET YOUR JAB.
That's democracy. People who believe that their favoured politicians are "lilywhite" or have "integrity" are being taken for a fool.
I know Boris isn't. I'm no fool, I just think Boris serves my interests politically. Eyes wide open as to it all.
And, yes, I take your point about the possibility of negative blowback if it all goes pear for him.
The lockdown did the heavy lifting, the vaccinations added to it, and will hopefully sustain the lower levels.
The ugly side of what you suggest is that without the vaccinations, with the new variants, R would be above 1. I say ugly, because that is the position that is unrolling in a number of other countries.....
1) Get Your Jab
2) Prepare people in case something appears that stops the jab working.
I think I'll be proved right.
I wonder with which mistress BJ will be holed up when his fate finally comes a-knocking?
The old saying of "its not the crime, its the cover up" that is the biggest problem applies. Johnson doesn't cover up his foibles.
There's little risk of a foreign power having something on Johnson to make him a Cnut, because he's openly a Cnut.
Did you catch my earlier post about how the bar for him seems quite low?
Not a partisan point by me: just frustrated with Boris for blundering around. Again.
https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/talking-politics-history-of-ideas/id1508992867?i=1000473966146
Well worth 44 minutes of anyone’s time, IMO
Question for @Foxy ... There was some speculation that the effect might be connected with inadvertent intravenous administration of the vaccine. Googling around, I see that adenovirus does target endolethial cells, and disruption of the endothelium is associated with thrombosis. Something in this, perhaps ?
Some clueless excuse-making today I’m afraid.
'Strewth mate, don't fancy those sheeps' eyes, IF THAT'S WHAT THEY ARE!'
What a time to be alive.
https://twitter.com/BrewDogJames/status/1381561061049053184?s=20
I am more saying what Starmer thinks, btw, than what I think. But I reckon that's more interesting for people atm. Me, I'm holding off until this time next year before deciding whether the strategy looks a good one.
The final Yougov Scottish independence poll before the 2016 EU referendum in March 2016 was Yes 41% No 48% and Undecided 12%.
The latest Yougov Scottish independence poll from March 2021 was Yes 41% No 43% and Undecided 14%.
So there has been zero change in the Yes vote due to Brexit, just some movement from No to Undecided
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_on_Scottish_independence
He really doesn't own his flaws honestly. He makes jokes. It's not the same thing at all.
When the dust settles he will either be that bloke that held his nerve, maintained his smart haircut, and is ready to lead the country; or the one that didn't have any policies of his own and lined up with the govt at every opportunity.
I'm guessing that voters of the former view will likely be those who might not have voted Lab before, while those of the latter, those who probably have.
"But not to come because of doctors advice and then brief out a story designed to create a positive news cycle about her is despicable."
And then "despicable" - "deserving hatred and contempt".
Is that how you live your life, Charles? Hating someone you don't know on account of something they may or may not have said or done?
It might be like a cat's disorientation after having its whiskers trimmed.
https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/tech/2021/04/419_307089.html
Your poll tells us very little. Was your poll conducted by Trafalgar?
Then Westminster can just be the UK Parliament for major fiscal policy, foreign policy and defence and each home nation is responsible for most of its own domestic policy so the issue of being outvoted in UK general elections is less important and we have a truly Federal UK
The artisanal rock optimisation community threw a wobbly over the AZN announcement - I think this is in the same category, but of lower import.
Some people seem to think that the correct messaging is to hide the unwanted facts. Somehow. I don't think this works in the modern world. It certainly can't work when there is a fuckton of JSON available at https://api.coronavirus.data.gov.uk/v1/data
I think there are 2 choices - get out ahead of the stories or follow them.
In this case there will be more cases, there will probably be more hospitalisations and deaths as a result fo unlocking, than staying locked in a box until.... whenever.
This is unpalatable. I am reminded with the shock and anger with with which my personal position on sanctions on Apartheid era South Africa was greeted. Which was - I agreed with sanctions. And agreed with them, despite the certain fact that they would kill a number of South Africans. Which they did....
So the poll tells us quite clearly there has been effectively no change at all in reality in Scots opinion on independence because of Brexit and confirms Brexit is not a material change in circumstances.
Maybe a No Deal Brexit might have been but we now have a UK and EU trade deal
The really logical answer for me, is to create a rubber stamping initiative, the Council of the Isles, where despite lower populations, nations within the UK have a large 'chunk' of power in making the big decisions taken by the UK. Setting population numbers to one side, it is a fact that the ties of UK nationhood and loyalty are now weaker, that the UK now consists of four strong national polities which need to find a new way to co-operate together to benefit each other. It is not unheard of - in the EU for example, where smaller nations still have veto power - Denmark doesn't have less of a veto because its population is so much smaller than Germany's.
Here, I see no real problem with what Boris said. It is a simple fact that in the 3rd wave infections and subsequent hospitalizations and death did fall primarily because of lockdown. Vaccinations did help, and will bear the brunt of preventing a 4th wave, but we are not at the stage where we can totally get rid of all the lockdown restrictions.
Given that the NHS website crashed today with too many people trying to enlist for vaccines, getting out the message to get vaccinated is not the problem. See the sights of London from yesterday, getting the unvaccinated to continue with a modicum of social distancing, hand and respiratory hygiene until we have reached herd immunity IS a problem.
Johnson's messaging seems to me to have had the right prioritization of messages.
Was it perfectly worded, no. Was it ok, yes.
So you wouldn't routinely have England voting one way and Scotland the other. Sometimes Scotland would have support from London, Yorkshire, or wherever.
Is Starmer someone to go into the trenches, pint of best in hand (or glass of Picpoul for that matter) and win them back? Because as you said, the Red Wall will need to be won back; I'm not sure it will drift back of its own accord.
In a couple of weeks, the numbers will either slow their decline or go up a bit. This is pretty much certain. Cue howling.
I'm quite sure there is a pre-written article for the Guardian demanding everyone be welded in individual boxes *NOW*, in a drawer, waiting.
The government needs to be in the place of "That thing we said would happen. It happened. There is also a film at 11."
Presumably the move would allow Scotland to raise it's own money. Do that in the regions of England, and you would have huge fiscal transfers between regions, which then couldn't be in control of that spending in terms of absolute levels.
That would continue to create huge internal stresses now for the regions, not just between Scotland and England.
Hull is one of several universities that are adopting “inclusive assessments”. These are designed to narrow the attainment gaps between different ethnic groups in higher education. Hull insisted that dropping the requirement for a high level of proficiency in written and spoken English will “challenge the status quo”. "
https://unherd.com/thepost/the-decline-of-standard-english-is-not-progress/
I don't think England wants to be carved up, despite repeated encouragement to do so, mainly from EU-federalists. It is a frequently offered answer to which nobody is actually asking a question.
For that to work, London, at around 9M, would be the largest federal unit.
Also, unlike most other parts of England, there's already an intensely strong regional identity.
Carving England into bits remains a stupid idea.