Why then did it take a further 11 years for the truth to come out about Ballymurphy?... They did what governments do with inconvenient truths - keep them hidden for as long as possible in the hope that time will render them unjusticiable.
It is a great header, and as @Cyclefree points out, not unique to Northern Ireland that government cover ups of wrongdoings can eventually be exposed by campaign groups and courts. At least they could in the past before this government started to outlaw some attempts.
So a "statute of limitations" has problems when a government cam effectively time out any punishment by dragging its feet, something private citizens cannot do.
It is noticeable to how few of the organisational and command culprits get punished when these crimes get exposed. The paratrooper with the gun is the one who gets exposed, but the officers who put him there then covered it up get away with it completely. It is typical British class privilege.
At the beginning of Operation Banner the British Army treated Northern Ireland like a Colonial insurrection. The (always difficult) problems of distinguishing irregular combatants from civilians were never really addressed, as the citizens of Aden, Kenya, Malaysia and many had previously found out. Indeed, the USA was doing very little to distinguish between combatants and civilians in 1971 in Indochina too.
Similar thing with corruption in the City. Tom Hayes absolutely monstered, nobody anywhere near the boardroom anywhere near jail.
The inquiry into Covid will be interesting in this regard. Will it be all "lessons to be learnt" or will there be some homing in on culpability? And if the latter, will it be exclusively 'institutional" or will there be individuals in the frame?
But Hayes absolutely deserved to be monstered. He was no innocent. Believe me.
Not innocent at all. But I did think he was harshly done by. Of course some of it comes from the relativity - his treatment cf others. That scandal was quite close to home for me. Interest rates were at the heart of much of what I used to do when I was in that arena and 'libors' were front and centre and gospel, how they moved drove valuations and trades and pee'n'ells all over the place, it used to - not kidding - dominate my waking hours, I'd even dream about it sometimes, libor this, libor that, libor plus 100, libor flat, libor libor libor, living and breathing the wretched thing, and then you look at the process to set it and it's just so naff, the fixing is a fix, libor is a liebor, and millions of financial positions across the world, wholesale and retail, are impacted. Quite incredible really. It reminded me a little of SP fixing by crooked bookies in horse racing. But you wouldn't expect that in blue chip financial institutions, would you? Well you would, I suppose, but you know what I mean.
Presumably now you're out of it you feel liborated?
- Yep. And good for people around me too. I was becoming a libore.
New Libor, New Danger...
I do hope so.
Some years ago I was called for jury service and got called for one of the Libor trials. My heart sank through my boots. Luckily though I was completely ruled out because of my extensive knowledge of the subject and connections with firms.
I finished up doing a couple of short trials and happily escaped the multi-month nightmare.
Phew. Although I've always fancied doing jury service and I wouldn't mind a long trial. Anything apart from something gruesome appeals. Never got the call though. Most people I know have but not me. Bit odd really. Still, their loss.
I've done it twice (all short trials). It has some small interest for a day or so, but its pretty grim overall. Huge amounts of just sitting and waiting.
I'd imagine a long trial would be simply awful.
I plan to develop great expertise in any areas where major trials are likely in that it rules you out! I think in fact that this is the case is insane - I'd have been a great juror to sit on that Libor trial - I'm sure I'd have known far more than the lawyers, possibly more than the defendents and expert witnesses. It's a bit odd that these trials are more about the story than the facts. (Just as it seems to me, and undoubtedly good reason for it etc - not bad-mouthing the system)
A blurred distinction in practice, but in theory is it not knowledge of the people that rules you out rather than knowledge of the subject matter?
Both. I think either one would have ruled me out, but I knew the area, had worked for some of the firms (a long list) connected, and (vaguely) knew some of the people (a long list of names). So heavily ruled out on three grounds
Some interesting 'helicopter' on long term demographic change and he seems (like me) to come down on the side of the Alternative Narrative, ie Labour should prioritize securing and expanding their new base rather than bust a gut chasing their old one.
Rather fudges things at the end, though, with the conclusion that what Labour really need to get back in the game are policies that will - wait for it - "make Britain richer, fairer, cleaner and more contented."
And he got paid for that, I suppose.
Interesting but especially the fudge at the end suggests that Peter Kellner has no idea how Labour would stitch something coherent together.
He is silent about the absolutely obvious issue: There is one party in the Tory position (call it centre right if you want), and three (+much of SNP policy) in the Labour one (centre left if you like).
The election of 1983 proves beyond reasonable doubt this cannot work.
Now that the LDs have decisively rejected being soft Tories for nice people the only solution is a single centre left party of Lab, LD (and Green if possible), in a deal with the SNP.
Andy Burnham heading for another big political victory. I reckon Sage will recommend a surge-vax for all the Indian variant boroughs and their neighbours. Let’s see.
After yesterday's nonsense story, today the Guardian seem to be being driven mad by Boris success.....exclusive scandal...PM takes helicopter ride during campaign.
EU citizens are being sent to immigration removal centres and held in airport detention rooms as the UK government’s “hostile environment” policy falls on them after Brexit, according to campaigners and travellers interviewed by the Guardian.
Europeans with job interviews are among those being denied entry and locked up. They have spoken of being subjected to the traumatic and humiliating experience of expulsion, despite Home Office rules that explicitly allow non-visa holders to attend interviews.
Denied entry?
Aren't we still under lockdown?
Yeah, it's illegal to travel internationally from England for a job interview. Hard to have much sympathy.
Either they are allowed to come here for their interviews or they aren’t.
If they are allowed, the fault is with the government, and if we are locking them up they deserve every sympathy, whether or not we are allowed to travel elsewhere for the same reason.
Not at all possible that it was those traveling that were at fault, is it?
Some of them clearly were - as the full article clearly states. But it would appear that most of them weren’t.
According to who? You've not provided a link to the article just a snippet.
Most of the article seems to be people who thought they could turn up “explore the job market” to get an offer. So not an interview.
But the article clearlty states r this is happeningn as does one person from a NGO quoted. I suspect the lack of quotes is cos the actual interviewees don't want comebacks.
Edit: It also makes clear some cases are not permitted anyway.
Irrespective of that, I'm still surprised at the HO advice permitting interviews, meetings, seminars. etc.
Work is permitted, travel for work is permitted as a result.
Travel to look for work, which is what all the quotes seem to be, is not. They've broken Covid rules, zero sympathy.
Zero Sympathy could probably have been quite a successful slogan for the whole Brexit movement, or the Leave.EU campaign.
Oh don't be a dickhead.
Should we remain under lockdown because hundreds of thousands of people are coming from Europe to "explore the job market" while they have surging case rates and we don't?
Coming here right now is against the law. Because of a pandemic, not Brexit.
Post-lockdown Europeans will be able to come here for a few months, explore the market to their content, fly home and apply for a visa. No issues. But not during a pandemic. 🙄
Your periodic resorting to abuse achieves nothing, and these measures will continue long after Covid, as I'm sure you know.
You're the one who chose to abuse the whole Brexit movement. I responded in kind.
Why would Covid measures continue after Covid? Currently coming as a tourist or to go looking for work etc is illegal - eventually it won't be.
No, you switched to ad hominem abuse, whereas I critiqued the Brexit movement as a whole. On the measures, theses are not fundamentally about Covid. If the government doesn't moderate them in response to European pressure, they will probably have long lasting knock-on effects on the relationship.
"Zero Sympathy could probably have been quite a successful slogan for the whole Brexit movement" is not a "critique" it is being a dickhead trolling 52% of the population.
These measures are fundamentally about Covid. Its against the law to enter the country without a reason - in normal circumstances it is and people could arrive in the UK for tourism and look for work then head home to apply for a visa - but that's illegal under Covid rules.
Anyone who chooses to fly to another country, without a visa, without anything arranged, during a pandemic, during a lockdown, is a selfish fool who deserves to be sent packing. If we can't even go to a restaurant, why should they be able to come to browse the job market?
The measures will continue long after Covid, and your defence of switching to direct personal insults, as being equivalent to a critique of lowest common denominator politics, is absurd.
The measures of refusing entry to people with insufficient evidence to justify their visit? Good.
Certainly - that's Brexit.
I hate to break it to you but it was like that before, too.
But not if you were Italian, French, Bulgarian, Portugese, Greek or Spanish.
But the policy is the same.
Yes, but now with different cultural consequences for our negotiations with our neighbours, as I said. Welcome to the Brexit, as they say.
Do you really think our neighbours will take offence because of a few people being denied entry for not having sufficient paperwork for their trip?
Yup.
Do keep us apprised of any diplomatic incidents that occur because of this then. I think the chance of this being of any consequence beyond tomorrow is nil.
If the detention continues after Covid, as it's very likely to, the Europeans will start detaining Britons, as they haven't done so far, with the inevitable tabloid storm that will follow.
Holding someone until they can take a flight back is normal practice. It’s unusual to offsite them but detention is unexceptional
According to the Guardian report, a significant number of people may have been sent elsewhere. That's what the Europeans will be watching.
Not just sent anywhere. According to the Guardian someone who flew from Mexico was returned to Mexico.
That's what happens when you fly illegally to another nation, you get turned around and sent back. Not pick your pick of new destinations.
Nope. There are mentions of places like Yarl's Wood in the report. As I said, that's what the Europeans will be watching.
Yarl's Wood is a detention center to hold people until they can be deported. What else do you expect?
The Europeans will expect reciprocity. So far there are no reports of Britons being sent off site to detention centres.
How many Britons have gone illegally to look for work during a pandemic?
Some interesting 'helicopter' on long term demographic change and he seems (like me) to come down on the side of the Alternative Narrative, ie Labour should prioritize securing and expanding their new base rather than bust a gut chasing their old one.
Rather fudges things at the end, though, with the conclusion that what Labour really need to get back in the game are policies that will - wait for it - "make Britain richer, fairer, cleaner and more contented."
And he got paid for that, I suppose.
As a floating voter (partisans will have their own view), Corbyn Labour only showed interest in fairness - nothing about richer, cleaner or more content, and it felt very likely their policies would lead to poorer and less content.
I am not sure the govt is offering those 4 either, although I can see why some think they are.
If Starmer can convince voters like me he is offering at least 3 from 4 out of richer, fairer, cleaner, more content, with credible policies to go with it, they are on their way to a recovery.
It is hard to get data on the specificity under clinical settings of the COVID tests being done. But let's assume it is 99.9%, that means at this level of testing we'd expect over 1,000 false positives a day, i.e. about half the total number of positives (implying that the predictive value of a positive test now is a coin toss).
If that is indeed the case, I am very confident that the schedule for easing restrictions need not be slowed down. Particularly as we now know that over 10 million of the unvaccinated have antibodies.
I think to estimate what proportion are false positives, we would need to know how many tests are done where there is strong suspicion of COVID.
I don't think you can just divide total number of tests done by specificity.
I was not doing that. I was multiplying total tests by specificity to get false positives. Then dividing true positives by total positives to get predictive value. That is the way it is done.
Sorry but I don't think you can multiply total tests by specificity to get false positives UNLESS you are testing people at random. The testing we are doing in the UK is targeted in lots of ways... to contacts of cases, to people with symptoms etc.
So it's wrong to say we would expect 1,000 false positives per day.
You cite a story from October last year, when prevalence was higher, and testing was lower.
Can you really say that 1.5 million tests a day is focused mainly, or even disproportionately, on high-risk COVID cases, when only 1.5 in 1000 of those tested are being found to be positive.
Bollocks, is what I say to that suggestion.
Obviously the testing is focused on those more likely to have COVID than would be achieved by sampling at random. Obviously.
ONS reckons roughly 55k people out of 65m have covid in latest survey. That's a few thousand new cases per day.
Is your position really that we are doing 1m tests a day and somehow missing those people? And instead getting loads of false positives?
Aren't the Lateral Flow Tests only recorded as positive if confirmed by a laboratory test?
Good point, this is correct. "Number of people with at least one positive COVID-19 test result, either lab-reported or rapid lateral flow test (England only), by specimen date. Positive rapid lateral flow test results can be confirmed with PCR tests taken within 72 hours. If the PCR test results are negative, these are not reported as cases. People tested positive more than once are only counted once, on the date of their first positive test."
Four different proposals were shortlisted, as the various councils disagreed as to their preferred option.
From afar, I thought that the Morecambe Bay Authority looked the most interesting merging South Lakeland, Barrow and Lancaster councils, with the rest of Cumbria forming another unitary. This appeared to go hark back a few years to the northern part of the old Lancastershire boundaries. However Lancashire County Council is looking into its own unitarisation proposals.
There was a separate consultation for North Yorkshire and Somerset, but these looked less interesting.
From nearby that proposal is one of the worst.
Two unitaries, Cumberland and Westmorland please. And give Barrow-in-Furness back, as a district, to the Lancastrians.
No - absolutely not. That simply does not reflect the reality of life now in the Furness area.
Haha. Shockingly, I have never been to Cumbria. What’s your preferred governance arrangement?
Blimey!
None of the proposals are ideal. The worst by a long way is having a unitary authority for the whole of Cumbria. The big issue is that you have in the middle the National Park and then all the areas around the outside. The National Park has its own governance to a certain extent so thought needs to be given to how the internal ring and the outer ring work together.
Of the proposals put forward the one we've favoured in our response is this one:-
"Carlisle City Council and Eden District Council submitted a joint proposal for two unitary councils covering the whole of the area of the administrative county of Cumbria: one unitary council in the north comprising the current districts of Allerdale, Carlisle and Eden; and one in the south comprising the current districts of Barrow, Copeland and South Lakeland in the south."
That at least makes geographic sense, avoids remote areas being governed from places far away (such as Carlisle, which takes absolutely no interest in places like Copeland) and is in line with how people Iive and work in the area. Barrow and Millom, for instance, are closely connected in terms of people living and working in both areas and moving easily between the two, in a way which does not happen between, say, Millom and Carlisle or Penrith etc.
Putting somewhere like Lancaster together with the Furness area is wrong because they are very far apart and have very different needs so one area will inevitably suffer.
Aren't they united - in some respect I can't quite fathom - for health reasons (and perhaps other reasons)?
To me, Lancaster seems more like Kendal than it does like most of Lancashire. And Kendal seems not unlike Grange . It's Barrow and Millom that are the anomalies - working class industrial islands in miles and miles of bucolia - not to mention both at the end of long peninsulas. They're not even convenient for each other.
Andy Burnham heading for another big political victory. I reckon Sage will recommend a surge-vax for all the Indian variant boroughs and their neighbours. Let’s see.
Burnham, the man who dicking around last time in refusing to lockdown cost lives and increased spread.
Andy Burnham heading for another big political victory. I reckon Sage will recommend a surge-vax for all the Indian variant boroughs and their neighbours. Let’s see.
Why then did it take a further 11 years for the truth to come out about Ballymurphy?... They did what governments do with inconvenient truths - keep them hidden for as long as possible in the hope that time will render them unjusticiable.
It is a great header, and as @Cyclefree points out, not unique to Northern Ireland that government cover ups of wrongdoings can eventually be exposed by campaign groups and courts. At least they could in the past before this government started to outlaw some attempts.
So a "statute of limitations" has problems when a government cam effectively time out any punishment by dragging its feet, something private citizens cannot do.
It is noticeable to how few of the organisational and command culprits get punished when these crimes get exposed. The paratrooper with the gun is the one who gets exposed, but the officers who put him there then covered it up get away with it completely. It is typical British class privilege.
At the beginning of Operation Banner the British Army treated Northern Ireland like a Colonial insurrection. The (always difficult) problems of distinguishing irregular combatants from civilians were never really addressed, as the citizens of Aden, Kenya, Malaysia and many had previously found out. Indeed, the USA was doing very little to distinguish between combatants and civilians in 1971 in Indochina too.
Similar thing with corruption in the City. Tom Hayes absolutely monstered, nobody anywhere near the boardroom anywhere near jail.
The inquiry into Covid will be interesting in this regard. Will it be all "lessons to be learnt" or will there be some homing in on culpability? And if the latter, will it be exclusively 'institutional" or will there be individuals in the frame?
But Hayes absolutely deserved to be monstered. He was no innocent. Believe me.
Not innocent at all. But I did think he was harshly done by. Of course some of it comes from the relativity - his treatment cf others. That scandal was quite close to home for me. Interest rates were at the heart of much of what I used to do when I was in that arena and 'libors' were front and centre and gospel, how they moved drove valuations and trades and pee'n'ells all over the place, it used to - not kidding - dominate my waking hours, I'd even dream about it sometimes, libor this, libor that, libor plus 100, libor flat, libor libor libor, living and breathing the wretched thing, and then you look at the process to set it and it's just so naff, the fixing is a fix, libor is a liebor, and millions of financial positions across the world, wholesale and retail, are impacted. Quite incredible really. It reminded me a little of SP fixing by crooked bookies in horse racing. But you wouldn't expect that in blue chip financial institutions, would you? Well you would, I suppose, but you know what I mean.
Presumably now you're out of it you feel liborated?
- Yep. And good for people around me too. I was becoming a libore.
New Libor, New Danger...
I do hope so.
Some years ago I was called for jury service and got called for one of the Libor trials. My heart sank through my boots. Luckily though I was completely ruled out because of my extensive knowledge of the subject and connections with firms.
I finished up doing a couple of short trials and happily escaped the multi-month nightmare.
Phew. Although I've always fancied doing jury service and I wouldn't mind a long trial. Anything apart from something gruesome appeals. Never got the call though. Most people I know have but not me. Bit odd really. Still, their loss.
I've done it twice (all short trials). It has some small interest for a day or so, but its pretty grim overall. Huge amounts of just sitting and waiting.
I'd imagine a long trial would be simply awful.
I plan to develop great expertise in any areas where major trials are likely in that it rules you out! I think in fact that this is the case is insane - I'd have been a great juror to sit on that Libor trial - I'm sure I'd have known far more than the lawyers, possibly more than the defendents and expert witnesses. It's a bit odd that these trials are more about the story than the facts. (Just as it seems to me, and undoubtedly good reason for it etc - not bad-mouthing the system)
A blurred distinction in practice, but in theory is it not knowledge of the people that rules you out rather than knowledge of the subject matter?
Both. I think either one would have ruled me out, but I knew the area, had worked for some of the firms (a long list) connected, and (vaguely) knew some of the people (a long list of names). So heavily ruled out on three grounds
We probably know each other!
Always possible. I get the impression you're a little younger than me. My city career was 1986-2003. I was an options trader and for a while a broker. A somewhat different area thereafter, and now, for the last few months, basically retired.
Andy Burnham heading for another big political victory. I reckon Sage will recommend a surge-vax for all the Indian variant boroughs and their neighbours. Let’s see.
Burnham, the man who dicking around last time in refusing to lockdown cost lives and increased spread.
The Header by Cyclefree is interesting and I don't entirely disagree with it. I do however think she makes some poor arguments on certain issues.
Personally I think Mercer is absolutely right on this. One of the reasons that the recent trials failed - indeed why they should never have been held - is that the men had already investigated before and that it was decided the evidence was not sufficient. The prosecution depended on statements made 50 years ago which the investigators decided had been made under coercion and direction from superior officers and that they were therefore unsafe. This was the conclusion reached in 2010 but the prosecutors tried to reintroduce the same evidence with no new supporting evidence and the judge rightly told them to take a hike. This is always going to be the case with these trials which is why they are pointless and wrong.
But on the more general point I am afraid the view that "this was a war in which both sides were combatants" has already been implicitly accepted in the Good Friday Agreement. That is why all those prisoners who had been found guilty of murder were let out and others, who had not got to trial, were given letters of immunity. The whole basis of the Good Friday Agreement was that bad things happened but we cannot punish those who did them because to do so we perpetuate the cycle of violence. But apparently we are to exclude one specific set of combatants from that rule. And that being the one set who - unlike the IRA and Loyalist gunmen were not given a choice of whether or not they had to walk the streets of Belfast carrying a gun.
If you think the Good Friday Agreement is rubbish and should be torn up then that is of course a valid view, even if one I disagree with. But it is hypocritical to defend the agreement and then attack the necessary evils that had to be put in place to make it work. What we need to do is mitigate those evils - one of which was the idea that one set of combatants should be hung out to dry whilst the others do, literally, get away with murder.
Powerfully argued.
The argument that one should not have trials when the evidence is inadequate or inadmissible - as was the case with the two men recently acquitted - is not an argument for not having investigations or prosecutions where there is such evidence. Mercer's view is that soldiers should be exempt because it's somehow not fair to investigate them when they are accused of murder because it is all so long ago. I don't think that is a valid argument at all. We have never accepted a statute of limitations for murder. So why now and why here?
The counter-argument: that the truth should come out so that people know what happened and by whom but the quid pro quo is no prosecutions has some merit but only if it applies to all and the truth really does come out. But it seems to me that we're not going to get that either. It's a fudged mess which disgraces the government.
Perhaps it is the most that can be expected in and for NI. I fear that it will not heal wounds, will store up trouble and will be used as a troubling precedent elsewhere.
Back to lurking. Bye.
The argument is that all these trials are going to run into the same issue. It is why the Judge was so critical of the prosecution. If the only way that you can get a conviction is by relying upon evidence that was already discounted more than a decade ago with no new supporting evidence then all you are doing is indulging in persecution rather than prosecution and wasting the court's time.
More to the point you ignore my second, more fundamental argument. The whole Good Friday Agreement is built on burying the past and letting people get away with murder. It is perverse to suggest that one side should benefit from this and not the other. Particularly when the ones you want to pursue are the ones who had no choice over being there, had received no training on how to deal with these situations and are now being hung out to dry by the very establishment which gave them guns and then pointed them at an enemy (a false one as it happened).
The UK government and army wasn’t “a side”.
The “sides” were the Loyalists and the Provos. The army should be held to a higher standard
Sorry, but the British Army was definitely a "side", in the same sense that they have been in many counter-insurgency operations. The other "side" was PIRA predominantly and sometimes the INLA and other splinter groups. The loyalist paramilitaries were a part of a complex game of chess, but rather distastefully were essentially on the same side as the British Army.
Some interesting 'helicopter' on long term demographic change and he seems (like me) to come down on the side of the Alternative Narrative, ie Labour should prioritize securing and expanding their new base rather than bust a gut chasing their old one.
Rather fudges things at the end, though, with the conclusion that what Labour really need to get back in the game are policies that will - wait for it - "make Britain richer, fairer, cleaner and more contented."
And he got paid for that, I suppose.
Can the new Labour Party change its name then as it will no longer, if it does now, represent the labouring classes?
Yeah. Less than 100 hospitalisations yesterday (99). Lowest during this lockdown*. 120 last Thursday.
Last few Thursdays, most recent first:
99 120 134 150 201 220 274 354 426 532 757
edit: * 99 could be lowest back to when pandemic began?
Only in August last year did we have lower rates, since records began. Even then only on 8 days in August.
Definitely another sign that we're at herd immunity already, the numbers shrinking are very significant.
I doubt these figures are accurate. Does anyone on this website know anyone in the last month who has been admitted to Hospital with Covid. As I said yesterday there is no one in any Hampshire Hospital with Covid, nor in Bournemouth Hospital. 2000 daily cases and a 100 admissions seems far too high a ratio.
Without knowing what proportion of people in the UK are known by PBers, and that that grouping is a representative sample, that will give you zero useful information.
Yeah. Less than 100 hospitalisations yesterday (99). Lowest during this lockdown*. 120 last Thursday.
Last few Thursdays, most recent first:
99 120 134 150 201 220 274 354 426 532 757
edit: * 99 could be lowest back to when pandemic began?
The rate of increase on positive tests when controlled for total tests seems to have ticked down a notch on yesterday too – or am I imagining/misremembering that?
Overall, it looks to me like:
- Probable gentle rise in cases, concentrated in the unvaccinated. Spike on the 10th; let's see if it continues or has subsided again. - Very gentle decline in hospitalisations continuing (looked like it had stalled, but with more information, looks like still declining). Number in hospital and number on mechanical ventilation continuing to gently decline - Deaths sub-10 per day; a spike on the 11th looks to be increasing the average, so at this level, data will be noisy.
That's exactly my sense Andy, but I haven't crunched the numbers in detail.
Is the road map in tatters? Is going to the big cricket match next week off? 🙁
Again, I don't know what you are talking about. No, the roadmap is not "in tatters".
I’m talking cricket. I’ve got my bag packed already.
Andy Burnham heading for another big political victory. I reckon Sage will recommend a surge-vax for all the Indian variant boroughs and their neighbours. Let’s see.
Burnham, the man who dicking around last time in refusing to lockdown cost lives and increased spread.
I think that's quite true, however politicians just have to do what they see as the right thing at the time. In hindsight Boris perhaps killed thousands, but if he'd got other things wrong then it may have been much worse, so perhaps he's saved tens of thousands.
Burnham got very close to grandstanding and risking lives, but I don't think that was his intent and it's hats off to all of the politicians that have had to confront these really tough times. Overall I think that the public was quite well served by the political class.
(Some of the dafter elements seemed to entirely vanish, and are only now reappearing in places like Hackney.)
EU citizens are being sent to immigration removal centres and held in airport detention rooms as the UK government’s “hostile environment” policy falls on them after Brexit, according to campaigners and travellers interviewed by the Guardian.
Europeans with job interviews are among those being denied entry and locked up. They have spoken of being subjected to the traumatic and humiliating experience of expulsion, despite Home Office rules that explicitly allow non-visa holders to attend interviews.
Denied entry?
Aren't we still under lockdown?
Yeah, it's illegal to travel internationally from England for a job interview. Hard to have much sympathy.
Either they are allowed to come here for their interviews or they aren’t.
If they are allowed, the fault is with the government, and if we are locking them up they deserve every sympathy, whether or not we are allowed to travel elsewhere for the same reason.
Not at all possible that it was those traveling that were at fault, is it?
Some of them clearly were - as the full article clearly states. But it would appear that most of them weren’t.
According to who? You've not provided a link to the article just a snippet.
Most of the article seems to be people who thought they could turn up “explore the job market” to get an offer. So not an interview.
But the article clearlty states r this is happeningn as does one person from a NGO quoted. I suspect the lack of quotes is cos the actual interviewees don't want comebacks.
Edit: It also makes clear some cases are not permitted anyway.
Irrespective of that, I'm still surprised at the HO advice permitting interviews, meetings, seminars. etc.
Work is permitted, travel for work is permitted as a result.
Travel to look for work, which is what all the quotes seem to be, is not. They've broken Covid rules, zero sympathy.
Zero Sympathy could probably have been quite a successful slogan for the whole Brexit movement, or the Leave.EU campaign.
Oh don't be a dickhead.
Should we remain under lockdown because hundreds of thousands of people are coming from Europe to "explore the job market" while they have surging case rates and we don't?
Coming here right now is against the law. Because of a pandemic, not Brexit.
Post-lockdown Europeans will be able to come here for a few months, explore the market to their content, fly home and apply for a visa. No issues. But not during a pandemic. 🙄
Your periodic resorting to abuse achieves nothing, and these measures will continue long after Covid, as I'm sure you know.
You're the one who chose to abuse the whole Brexit movement. I responded in kind.
Why would Covid measures continue after Covid? Currently coming as a tourist or to go looking for work etc is illegal - eventually it won't be.
No, you switched to ad hominem abuse, whereas I critiqued the Brexit movement as a whole. On the measures, theses are not fundamentally about Covid. If the government doesn't moderate them in response to European pressure, they will probably have long lasting knock-on effects on the relationship.
"Zero Sympathy could probably have been quite a successful slogan for the whole Brexit movement" is not a "critique" it is being a dickhead trolling 52% of the population.
These measures are fundamentally about Covid. Its against the law to enter the country without a reason - in normal circumstances it is and people could arrive in the UK for tourism and look for work then head home to apply for a visa - but that's illegal under Covid rules.
Anyone who chooses to fly to another country, without a visa, without anything arranged, during a pandemic, during a lockdown, is a selfish fool who deserves to be sent packing. If we can't even go to a restaurant, why should they be able to come to browse the job market?
The measures will continue long after Covid, and your defence of switching to direct personal insults, as being equivalent to a critique of lowest common denominator politics, is absurd.
The measures of refusing entry to people with insufficient evidence to justify their visit? Good.
Certainly - that's Brexit.
I hate to break it to you but it was like that before, too.
But not if you were Italian, French, Bulgarian, Portugese, Greek or Spanish.
But the policy is the same.
Yes, but now with different cultural consequences for our negotiations with our neighbours, as I said. Welcome to the Brexit, as they say.
Do you really think our neighbours will take offence because of a few people being denied entry for not having sufficient paperwork for their trip?
Yup.
Do keep us apprised of any diplomatic incidents that occur because of this then. I think the chance of this being of any consequence beyond tomorrow is nil.
If the detention continues after Covid, as it's very likely to, the Europeans will start detaining Britons, as they haven't done so far, with the inevitable tabloid storm that will follow.
Holding someone until they can take a flight back is normal practice. It’s unusual to offsite them but detention is unexceptional
According to the Guardian report, a significant number of people may have been sent elsewhere. That's what the Europeans will be watching.
Not just sent anywhere. According to the Guardian someone who flew from Mexico was returned to Mexico.
That's what happens when you fly illegally to another nation, you get turned around and sent back. Not pick your pick of new destinations.
Nope. There are mentions of places like Yarl's Wood in the report. As I said, that's what the Europeans will be watching.
Yarl's Wood is a detention center to hold people until they can be deported. What else do you expect?
The Europeans will expect reciprocity. So far there are no reports of Britons being sent off site to detention centres.
How many Britons have gone illegally to look for work during a pandemic?
I suspect that it will be British overstayers who will wind up being deported, after a spell in some EU Yarlswood equivalent, which may well not be very nice at all.
It is hard to get data on the specificity under clinical settings of the COVID tests being done. But let's assume it is 99.9%, that means at this level of testing we'd expect over 1,000 false positives a day, i.e. about half the total number of positives (implying that the predictive value of a positive test now is a coin toss).
If that is indeed the case, I am very confident that the schedule for easing restrictions need not be slowed down. Particularly as we now know that over 10 million of the unvaccinated have antibodies.
I think to estimate what proportion are false positives, we would need to know how many tests are done where there is strong suspicion of COVID.
I don't think you can just divide total number of tests done by specificity.
I was not doing that. I was multiplying total tests by specificity to get false positives. Then dividing true positives by total positives to get predictive value. That is the way it is done.
Sorry but I don't think you can multiply total tests by specificity to get false positives UNLESS you are testing people at random. The testing we are doing in the UK is targeted in lots of ways... to contacts of cases, to people with symptoms etc.
So it's wrong to say we would expect 1,000 false positives per day.
You cite a story from October last year, when prevalence was higher, and testing was lower.
Can you really say that 1.5 million tests a day is focused mainly, or even disproportionately, on high-risk COVID cases, when only 1.5 in 1000 of those tested are being found to be positive.
Bollocks, is what I say to that suggestion.
Obviously the testing is focused on those more likely to have COVID than would be achieved by sampling at random. Obviously.
ONS reckons roughly 55k people out of 65m have covid in latest survey. That's a few thousand new cases per day.
Is your position really that we are doing 1m tests a day and somehow missing those people? And instead getting loads of false positives?
Aren't the Lateral Flow Tests only recorded as positive if confirmed by a laboratory test?
No - at least one positive test. See the England stats.
Four different proposals were shortlisted, as the various councils disagreed as to their preferred option.
From afar, I thought that the Morecambe Bay Authority looked the most interesting merging South Lakeland, Barrow and Lancaster councils, with the rest of Cumbria forming another unitary. This appeared to go hark back a few years to the northern part of the old Lancastershire boundaries. However Lancashire County Council is looking into its own unitarisation proposals.
There was a separate consultation for North Yorkshire and Somerset, but these looked less interesting.
From nearby that proposal is one of the worst.
Two unitaries, Cumberland and Westmorland please. And give Barrow-in-Furness back, as a district, to the Lancastrians.
No - absolutely not. That simply does not reflect the reality of life now in the Furness area.
Haha. Shockingly, I have never been to Cumbria. What’s your preferred governance arrangement?
Blimey!
None of the proposals are ideal. The worst by a long way is having a unitary authority for the whole of Cumbria. The big issue is that you have in the middle the National Park and then all the areas around the outside. The National Park has its own governance to a certain extent so thought needs to be given to how the internal ring and the outer ring work together.
Of the proposals put forward the one we've favoured in our response is this one:-
"Carlisle City Council and Eden District Council submitted a joint proposal for two unitary councils covering the whole of the area of the administrative county of Cumbria: one unitary council in the north comprising the current districts of Allerdale, Carlisle and Eden; and one in the south comprising the current districts of Barrow, Copeland and South Lakeland in the south."
That at least makes geographic sense, avoids remote areas being governed from places far away (such as Carlisle, which takes absolutely no interest in places like Copeland) and is in line with how people Iive and work in the area. Barrow and Millom, for instance, are closely connected in terms of people living and working in both areas and moving easily between the two, in a way which does not happen between, say, Millom and Carlisle or Penrith etc.
Putting somewhere like Lancaster together with the Furness area is wrong because they are very far apart and have very different needs so one area will inevitably suffer.
If you squint, your preferred option is essentially a Cumberland and a “Greater Westmorland” division...
In elections, only positive votes count - the strength of feeling against you is irrelevant so long as you get more votes than your competition, and so Voting Intention polls only ask respondents who they will vote for, not who they won't... because the second question doesn't matter. Lets imagine such a poll were taken, the question asked "Would you consider voting for the following party; Yes, No or Don't Know" and the results were as follows
Yes No DK Net Con 30 70 0 -40 Lab 23 52 25 -29 LD 8 45 47 -37 SNP 3 38 59 -35 Green 2 40 58 -38 Brexit 1 48 51 -47
Only The Brexit Party are less popular than the Conservatives in net terms.
But of course, we have forgotten that 30% of voters, won't vote! So divide the positive number for each party by 70 (Possible voters minus stay at homes) and the result of an Election would be
It is hard to get data on the specificity under clinical settings of the COVID tests being done. But let's assume it is 99.9%, that means at this level of testing we'd expect over 1,000 false positives a day, i.e. about half the total number of positives (implying that the predictive value of a positive test now is a coin toss).
If that is indeed the case, I am very confident that the schedule for easing restrictions need not be slowed down. Particularly as we now know that over 10 million of the unvaccinated have antibodies.
I think to estimate what proportion are false positives, we would need to know how many tests are done where there is strong suspicion of COVID.
I don't think you can just divide total number of tests done by specificity.
I was not doing that. I was multiplying total tests by specificity to get false positives. Then dividing true positives by total positives to get predictive value. That is the way it is done.
Sorry but I don't think you can multiply total tests by specificity to get false positives UNLESS you are testing people at random. The testing we are doing in the UK is targeted in lots of ways... to contacts of cases, to people with symptoms etc.
So it's wrong to say we would expect 1,000 false positives per day.
You cite a story from October last year, when prevalence was higher, and testing was lower.
Can you really say that 1.5 million tests a day is focused mainly, or even disproportionately, on high-risk COVID cases, when only 1.5 in 1000 of those tested are being found to be positive.
Bollocks, is what I say to that suggestion.
Obviously the testing is focused on those more likely to have COVID than would be achieved by sampling at random. Obviously.
ONS reckons roughly 55k people out of 65m have covid in latest survey. That's a few thousand new cases per day.
Is your position really that we are doing 1m tests a day and somehow missing those people? And instead getting loads of false positives?
Aren't the Lateral Flow Tests only recorded as positive if confirmed by a laboratory test?
Good point, this is correct. "Number of people with at least one positive COVID-19 test result, either lab-reported or rapid lateral flow test (England only), by specimen date. Positive rapid lateral flow test results can be confirmed with PCR tests taken within 72 hours. If the PCR test results are negative, these are not reported as cases. People tested positive more than once are only counted once, on the date of their first positive test."
So what is the category for unconfirmed on the website then? Awaiting confirmation? Seems a bit confused.
Andy Burnham heading for another big political victory. I reckon Sage will recommend a surge-vax for all the Indian variant boroughs and their neighbours. Let’s see.
Burnham, the man who dicking around last time in refusing to lockdown cost lives and increased spread.
I think that's quite true, however politicians just have to do what they see as the right thing at the time. In hindsight Boris perhaps killed thousands, but if he'd got other things wrong then it may have been much worse, so perhaps he's saved tens of thousands.
Burnham got very close to grandstanding and risking lives, but I don't think that was his intent and it's hats off to all of the politicians that have had to confront these really tough times. Overall I think that the public was quite well served by the political class.
(Some of the dafter elements seemed to entirely vanish, and are only now reappearing in places like Hackney.)
I think Liverpool's leadership deserves some decent credit. Their voters are instinctly anti-Tory and strongly anti-Boris, but when it has come to being asked to do mass testing, a regional lockdown and now test events, they have agreed to all of them with no grandstanding or we have to do it ever si slightly different because seen to taking control.
I imagine it goes against every fibre of their being to be seen to play nice with Boris and the Tories.
Four different proposals were shortlisted, as the various councils disagreed as to their preferred option.
From afar, I thought that the Morecambe Bay Authority looked the most interesting merging South Lakeland, Barrow and Lancaster councils, with the rest of Cumbria forming another unitary. This appeared to go hark back a few years to the northern part of the old Lancastershire boundaries. However Lancashire County Council is looking into its own unitarisation proposals.
There was a separate consultation for North Yorkshire and Somerset, but these looked less interesting.
From nearby that proposal is one of the worst.
Two unitaries, Cumberland and Westmorland please. And give Barrow-in-Furness back, as a district, to the Lancastrians.
No - absolutely not. That simply does not reflect the reality of life now in the Furness area.
Haha. Shockingly, I have never been to Cumbria. What’s your preferred governance arrangement?
Blimey!
None of the proposals are ideal. The worst by a long way is having a unitary authority for the whole of Cumbria. The big issue is that you have in the middle the National Park and then all the areas around the outside. The National Park has its own governance to a certain extent so thought needs to be given to how the internal ring and the outer ring work together.
Of the proposals put forward the one we've favoured in our response is this one:-
"Carlisle City Council and Eden District Council submitted a joint proposal for two unitary councils covering the whole of the area of the administrative county of Cumbria: one unitary council in the north comprising the current districts of Allerdale, Carlisle and Eden; and one in the south comprising the current districts of Barrow, Copeland and South Lakeland in the south."
That at least makes geographic sense, avoids remote areas being governed from places far away (such as Carlisle, which takes absolutely no interest in places like Copeland) and is in line with how people Iive and work in the area. Barrow and Millom, for instance, are closely connected in terms of people living and working in both areas and moving easily between the two, in a way which does not happen between, say, Millom and Carlisle or Penrith etc.
Putting somewhere like Lancaster together with the Furness area is wrong because they are very far apart and have very different needs so one area will inevitably suffer.
If you squint, your preferred option is essentially a Cumberland and a “Greater Westmorland” division...
Note for non-nerds and people who have a life.
National Parks are also Local Planning Authorities.
I prefer LAs to be smallish - it is always interesting that France seems to have more functions at a more local level than we do. I would like to see Parish Councils beefed up a little.
Discussing the Labour leader with my son. He came up with a good word I’ve not heard before...
Starmite
Some love him, some not so much.
Isn't the whole problem very few people love him? At best you get he is steady eddie, unlike Boris.
Jezza was the equivalent of a vegan who loved marmite....they really really love it and won't stop telling you all about it. For many others they are instinctly against veganism and / or marmite.
Four different proposals were shortlisted, as the various councils disagreed as to their preferred option.
From afar, I thought that the Morecambe Bay Authority looked the most interesting merging South Lakeland, Barrow and Lancaster councils, with the rest of Cumbria forming another unitary. This appeared to go hark back a few years to the northern part of the old Lancastershire boundaries. However Lancashire County Council is looking into its own unitarisation proposals.
There was a separate consultation for North Yorkshire and Somerset, but these looked less interesting.
From nearby that proposal is one of the worst.
Two unitaries, Cumberland and Westmorland please. And give Barrow-in-Furness back, as a district, to the Lancastrians.
No - absolutely not. That simply does not reflect the reality of life now in the Furness area.
Haha. Shockingly, I have never been to Cumbria. What’s your preferred governance arrangement?
Blimey!
None of the proposals are ideal. The worst by a long way is having a unitary authority for the whole of Cumbria. The big issue is that you have in the middle the National Park and then all the areas around the outside. The National Park has its own governance to a certain extent so thought needs to be given to how the internal ring and the outer ring work together.
Of the proposals put forward the one we've favoured in our response is this one:-
"Carlisle City Council and Eden District Council submitted a joint proposal for two unitary councils covering the whole of the area of the administrative county of Cumbria: one unitary council in the north comprising the current districts of Allerdale, Carlisle and Eden; and one in the south comprising the current districts of Barrow, Copeland and South Lakeland in the south."
That at least makes geographic sense, avoids remote areas being governed from places far away (such as Carlisle, which takes absolutely no interest in places like Copeland) and is in line with how people Iive and work in the area. Barrow and Millom, for instance, are closely connected in terms of people living and working in both areas and moving easily between the two, in a way which does not happen between, say, Millom and Carlisle or Penrith etc.
Putting somewhere like Lancaster together with the Furness area is wrong because they are very far apart and have very different needs so one area will inevitably suffer.
Presumably there is a reason it's not suggested, but geographically wouldn't it make sense for Carlise, Eden, Allerdale and Copeland (Exc. Millom/Haverigg) to be joined together, and South Lakeland, Barrow and Millom/Haverigg to be together. Linking Whitehaven with Kendel instead of Workington is just perverse and the natural break along the coast seems to be the river Esk rather than the river Duddon. If Lancaster/Morecombe look to Barrow / Kendal then fine to include them, but I get the impression that they look to Preston and should stay in Lancs.
Andy Burnham heading for another big political victory. I reckon Sage will recommend a surge-vax for all the Indian variant boroughs and their neighbours. Let’s see.
Burnham, the man who dicking around last time in refusing to lockdown cost lives and increased spread.
I think that's quite true, however politicians just have to do what they see as the right thing at the time. In hindsight Boris perhaps killed thousands, but if he'd got other things wrong then it may have been much worse, so perhaps he's saved tens of thousands.
Burnham got very close to grandstanding and risking lives, but I don't think that was his intent and it's hats off to all of the politicians that have had to confront these really tough times. Overall I think that the public was quite well served by the political class.
(Some of the dafter elements seemed to entirely vanish, and are only now reappearing in places like Hackney.)
Cyclefree says: No one cares including 'UK voters who ignored Brexit's consequences for the peace settlement'.
Which translates, I think, as "Moderate UK voters should not have voted for a moderate and peaceful democratic change so that NI voters can safely carry on voting for outrageously extremist parties".
Andy Burnham heading for another big political victory. I reckon Sage will recommend a surge-vax for all the Indian variant boroughs and their neighbours. Let’s see.
Burnham, the man who dicking around last time in refusing to lockdown cost lives and increased spread.
I think that's quite true, however politicians just have to do what they see as the right thing at the time. In hindsight Boris perhaps killed thousands, but if he'd got other things wrong then it may have been much worse, so perhaps he's saved tens of thousands.
Burnham got very close to grandstanding and risking lives, but I don't think that was his intent and it's hats off to all of the politicians that have had to confront these really tough times. Overall I think that the public was quite well served by the political class.
(Some of the dafter elements seemed to entirely vanish, and are only now reappearing in places like Hackney.)
Hackney? What do you mean?
Oh I was just suggesting that I'm quite happy that Diane Abbot wasn't in a position of power during this period. I quite like her in many ways, but she'd have been an awful Home Secretary.
She's very far from the worst of noisy but useless politicians though, I just chose her because I imagined that people would get the 'Hackney' bit - clearly though I was wrong
In elections, only positive votes count - the strength of feeling against you is irrelevant so long as you get more votes than your competition, and so Voting Intention polls only ask respondents who they will vote for, not who they won't... because the second question doesn't matter. Lets imagine such a poll were taken, the question asked "Would you consider voting for the following party; Yes, No or Don't Know" and the results were as follows
Yes No DK Net Con 30 70 0 -40 Lab 23 52 25 -29 LD 8 45 47 -37 SNP 3 38 59 -35 Green 2 40 58 -38 Brexit 1 48 51 -47
Only The Brexit Party are less popular than the Conservatives in net terms.
But of course, we have forgotten that 30% of voters, won't vote! So divide the positive number for each party by 70 (Possible voters minus stay at homes) and the result of an Election would be
I seemed to remember they tried to do some analysis of false positives in school kids, and although there was a significant headline rate, the number who went for their PCR was quite small i.e. i reckon loads ofnkids went i have covid mum, i must isolate for 10 days, so can't go to school, shame...fires up Fortnite. Not going to risk that with a PCR test that might overturn it.
EU citizens are being sent to immigration removal centres and held in airport detention rooms as the UK government’s “hostile environment” policy falls on them after Brexit, according to campaigners and travellers interviewed by the Guardian.
Europeans with job interviews are among those being denied entry and locked up. They have spoken of being subjected to the traumatic and humiliating experience of expulsion, despite Home Office rules that explicitly allow non-visa holders to attend interviews.
Denied entry?
Aren't we still under lockdown?
Yeah, it's illegal to travel internationally from England for a job interview. Hard to have much sympathy.
Either they are allowed to come here for their interviews or they aren’t.
If they are allowed, the fault is with the government, and if we are locking them up they deserve every sympathy, whether or not we are allowed to travel elsewhere for the same reason.
Not at all possible that it was those traveling that were at fault, is it?
Some of them clearly were - as the full article clearly states. But it would appear that most of them weren’t.
According to who? You've not provided a link to the article just a snippet.
Most of the article seems to be people who thought they could turn up “explore the job market” to get an offer. So not an interview.
But the article clearlty states r this is happeningn as does one person from a NGO quoted. I suspect the lack of quotes is cos the actual interviewees don't want comebacks.
Edit: It also makes clear some cases are not permitted anyway.
Irrespective of that, I'm still surprised at the HO advice permitting interviews, meetings, seminars. etc.
Work is permitted, travel for work is permitted as a result.
Travel to look for work, which is what all the quotes seem to be, is not. They've broken Covid rules, zero sympathy.
Zero Sympathy could probably have been quite a successful slogan for the whole Brexit movement, or the Leave.EU campaign.
Oh don't be a dickhead.
Should we remain under lockdown because hundreds of thousands of people are coming from Europe to "explore the job market" while they have surging case rates and we don't?
Coming here right now is against the law. Because of a pandemic, not Brexit.
Post-lockdown Europeans will be able to come here for a few months, explore the market to their content, fly home and apply for a visa. No issues. But not during a pandemic. 🙄
Your periodic resorting to abuse achieves nothing, and these measures will continue long after Covid, as I'm sure you know.
You're the one who chose to abuse the whole Brexit movement. I responded in kind.
Why would Covid measures continue after Covid? Currently coming as a tourist or to go looking for work etc is illegal - eventually it won't be.
No, you switched to ad hominem abuse, whereas I critiqued the Brexit movement as a whole. On the measures, theses are not fundamentally about Covid. If the government doesn't moderate them in response to European pressure, they will probably have long lasting knock-on effects on the relationship.
"Zero Sympathy could probably have been quite a successful slogan for the whole Brexit movement" is not a "critique" it is being a dickhead trolling 52% of the population.
These measures are fundamentally about Covid. Its against the law to enter the country without a reason - in normal circumstances it is and people could arrive in the UK for tourism and look for work then head home to apply for a visa - but that's illegal under Covid rules.
Anyone who chooses to fly to another country, without a visa, without anything arranged, during a pandemic, during a lockdown, is a selfish fool who deserves to be sent packing. If we can't even go to a restaurant, why should they be able to come to browse the job market?
The measures will continue long after Covid, and your defence of switching to direct personal insults, as being equivalent to a critique of lowest common denominator politics, is absurd.
The measures of refusing entry to people with insufficient evidence to justify their visit? Good.
Certainly - that's Brexit.
I hate to break it to you but it was like that before, too.
But not if you were Italian, French, Bulgarian, Portugese, Greek or Spanish.
But the policy is the same.
Yes, but now with different cultural consequences for our negotiations with our neighbours, as I said. Welcome to the Brexit, as they say.
Do you really think our neighbours will take offence because of a few people being denied entry for not having sufficient paperwork for their trip?
Yup.
Do keep us apprised of any diplomatic incidents that occur because of this then. I think the chance of this being of any consequence beyond tomorrow is nil.
If the detention continues after Covid, as it's very likely to, the Europeans will start detaining Britons, as they haven't done so far, with the inevitable tabloid storm that will follow.
Holding someone until they can take a flight back is normal practice. It’s unusual to offsite them but detention is unexceptional
According to the Guardian report, a significant number of people may have been sent elsewhere. That's what the Europeans will be watching.
Not just sent anywhere. According to the Guardian someone who flew from Mexico was returned to Mexico.
That's what happens when you fly illegally to another nation, you get turned around and sent back. Not pick your pick of new destinations.
Nope. There are mentions of places like Yarl's Wood in the report. As I said, that's what the Europeans will be watching.
Yarl's Wood is a detention center to hold people until they can be deported. What else do you expect?
The Europeans will expect reciprocity. So far there are no reports of Britons being sent off site to detention centres.
How many Britons have gone illegally to look for work during a pandemic?
I suspect that it will be British overstayers who will wind up being deported, after a spell in some EU Yarlswood equivalent, which may well not be very nice at all.
The Politico covered this a week ago, and stated that in EU countries Brits would normally be held at the airport.
Andy Burnham heading for another big political victory. I reckon Sage will recommend a surge-vax for all the Indian variant boroughs and their neighbours. Let’s see.
Burnham, the man who dicking around last time in refusing to lockdown cost lives and increased spread.
I think that's quite true, however politicians just have to do what they see as the right thing at the time. In hindsight Boris perhaps killed thousands, but if he'd got other things wrong then it may have been much worse, so perhaps he's saved tens of thousands.
Burnham got very close to grandstanding and risking lives, but I don't think that was his intent and it's hats off to all of the politicians that have had to confront these really tough times. Overall I think that the public was quite well served by the political class.
(Some of the dafter elements seemed to entirely vanish, and are only now reappearing in places like Hackney.)
Hackney? What do you mean?
Oh I was just suggesting that I'm quite happy that Diane Abbot wasn't in a position of power during this period. I quite like her in many ways, but she'd have been an awful Home Secretary.
She's very far from the worst of noisy but useless politicians though, I just chose her because I imagined that people would get the 'Hackney' bit - clearly though I was wrong
The local Labour council is active and popular. There has been a very aggressive LTN scheme but most people have come round to it I think.
Diane is a near neighbour of mine. Occasionally she passes my house on the way to the bus stop.
She’d have been an awful HS, but no more awful and maybe better than Patel.
Discussing the Labour leader with my son. He came up with a good word I’ve not heard before...
Starmite
Some love him, some not so much.
Isn't the whole problem very few people love him? At best you get he is steady eddie, unlike Boris.
Jezza was the equivalent of a vegan who loved marmite....they really really love it and won't stop telling you all about it. For many others they are instinctly against veganism and / or marmite.
My son likes him. Sees him as a decent bloke doing his best against a proven liar and following a complete catastrophe.
Discussing the Labour leader with my son. He came up with a good word I’ve not heard before...
Starmite
Some love him, some not so much.
Isn't the whole problem very few people love him? At best you get he is steady eddie, unlike Boris.
Jezza was the equivalent of a vegan who loved marmite....they really really love it and won't stop telling you all about it. For many others they are instinctly against veganism and / or marmite.
My son likes him. Sees him as a decent bloke doing his best against a proven liar and following a complete catastrophe.
Hard to argue with that assessment.
According to the polling your son is the exception...
Just been for a walk with my dogs and I heard my first cuckoo of the year. Anyone else heard one ?
First one was about 3 weeks ago here in the Flatlands of Yorkshire. More may have arrived on the recent southerlies - a friend in Sweden heard their first yesterday and I heard one on a second site on Sunday.
Joe Biden could be filmed shouting "the moon landings were fake and it is made of blue cheese and the earth is flat" while sucking on a dummy and wearing a nappy, and the vast majority of us would conclude that he is still more mentally fit that the dangerous twat that preceded him.
We are being mentioned as being one reason the Euro Parliament is traipsing to Strasbourg one week a month, 'cos we never put forward a motion to stop it .
BTW, as much as UK politicians have complained about the Strasbourg travelling circus, they didn't mention it was imposed by London & the other 27 capitals.
Pagel on Sky calling for a complete delay to Monday’s opening. In other news, bears, popes, poo, communion...
Plus in other recent news, the slow move to totalitarianism continues. The government wants to extend Ofcom’s remit to all websites; in effect, to end freedom of speech.
"Does this mean Ofcom will be censoring the internet? We won’t censor the web or social media. Free expression is the lifeblood of the internet and it’s central to our democracy, values and modern society. Our role in upholding broadcasting standards for TV and radio programmes means we’ve gained extensive experience of protecting audiences from harm while upholding freedom of expression. An important part of our job will be to ensure online platforms do the same with their systems and processes."
This is Orwellian. A simpler answer would be 'Yes'.
We are being mentioned as being one reason the Euro Parliament is traipsing to Strasbourg one week a month, 'cos we never put forward a motion to stop it .
BTW, as much as UK politicians have complained about the Strasbourg travelling circus, they didn't mention it was imposed by London & the other 27 capitals.
We are being mentioned as being one reason the Euro Parliament is traipsing to Strasbourg one week a month, 'cos we never put forward a motion to stop it .
BTW, as much as UK politicians have complained about the Strasbourg travelling circus, they didn't mention it was imposed by London & the other 27 capitals.
Why would anybody waste their time asking for something that will 100% get a non.
Comical Dave is not only incredibly biased, he is a moron, as he blows up his own talking point in one tweet.
Its like saying why haven't I asked for a million quid from a client for a job worth about £10k....it obviously means I only ever want a maximum of £10k for that job.
An excellent header and very interesting mention of the 1991 War Crimes Act by Ms CycleFree, because it refers to a time when Conservative politicians still understood the importance of Britain's legal contribution to postwar global instutions, and as conservatives even as a key plank of Britain's international prestige ; from the UN to the ECHR.
This has taken a severe stuffing from the populist war on the Human Rights Act onwards, with the government pursuing an international approach more typical of the post-Reaganite U.S. - itself not an accident.
The War Crimes Act was widely criticised by jurists, and has been a dead letter since it was passed.
What it symbolises for this discussion is really what's relevant there, I think ; a Conservative administration that still understood how much of Britain's entire postwar influence rested on its international contributions to legal process.
To my mind, it's a good example of legislation that makes those voting for it feel good, but which actually achieves nothing.
The principle that no matter what the passage of time and no matter how successful murderers have been at finding refuge they can still be made to pay for their crimes is an important principle to establish, no matter what the difficulties with such prosecutions. It is the principle behind the prosecutions of people like Charles Taylor and Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic, as well as other less well-known criminals. It is a good principle for Britain to have established and enacted into its laws. Human nature being what it is, it is likely that there will continue to be such crimes and if this enables Britain not to be a place of refuge for such criminals, so much the better.
So you want to tear up the Good Friday Agreement and reopen the Troubles?
Because that principle was abandoned as part of the Good Friday Agreement.
Don't be a pillock. Really. I was stating why I thought the War Crimes Act 1991 was a good piece of legislation to have passed.
Of course I don't want the Troubles to restart. I would point out that there is currently violence happening in NI but no great interest on the part of the current British government in why that might be happening. Nor any great urgency to resolve it. Apparently NI is less important than a football league to this government.
The War Crimes Act 1991 was good at the time but by 1997 the idea that murderers would face justice no matter what was a principle we could no longer adhere to because to do so was keeping the Troubles alive. So the Good Friday Agreement 1997 killed that principle - it was determined better to draw a line in the sand and let murderers and let the murderers out of jail than continue to demand justice.
In which case there really should have been no problem with telling the Ballymurphy families the truth - that their loved ones were innocent and were killed by the security services. But no - they were forced to wait and suffer and fight for even that small bit of comfort.
Abandoning prosecutions but telling the truth I could just about stomach. Abandoning prosecutions but refusing to tell the truth, to provide even that much comfort to victims, is just revolting to my mind - a cynical betrayal of victims by both the state and the terrorists.
There was no problem, it happened. They've been told that. That's why it's in the news this week.
If you want it done sooner then why? How? Who would have done so? People aren't generally keen on revisiting issues of half a century ago unless it's dragged out by someone with an agenda, in this case the families concerned. Had they not been dogged then it would have been a case of letting sleeping dogs lie.
That's not dodgy or weird, that's just bureaucratic inertia. People concentrate on the issues of today not the fights of five decades ago from a time a line in the sand has already been drawn.
Nothing cynical. I doubt anyone who was senior making decisions fifty years ago is still working on it today. None may even be alive anymore.
I'm not going to repeat my header. The government knew from at least 2010 that the Ballymurphy victims were innocent, if not before. They had a golden opportunity to clear this up at the time of the Savile report. They could and should have done so. They rightly deserve to be castigated for dragging their feet on it.
And I'm saying I think your header is wrong. There was no need to dig up old dirt from Ballymurphy or anything else, the government had better priorities they were elected to do, digging up Ballymurphy wasn't one of them. It wasn't part of their manifesto or their responsibility. If you want to start revisiting every wrong from all of history then the government would be doing nothing else.
There is a process for families and others who are interested in digging up and revisiting these old stories to do so. They did. Due process was followed. It isn't the government's job to short-circuit that by initiating it themselves without a reason to do so.
Lets look at it from the other way - the Savile report dealt with what it was tasked to do, if they then should have revisited this, then what should be revisited now in response to Ballymurphy? Or was Ballymurphy the last possible issue?
If you keep turning up rocks from the past I'm sure you'll find worms from half a century ago, but where do you stop? Where do you go next? And when do you let sleeping dogs lie? And when do you decide to let due process be followed as has happened here.
Discussing the Labour leader with my son. He came up with a good word I’ve not heard before...
Starmite
Some love him, some not so much.
Isn't the whole problem very few people love him? At best you get he is steady eddie, unlike Boris.
Jezza was the equivalent of a vegan who loved marmite....they really really love it and won't stop telling you all about it. For many others they are instinctly against veganism and / or marmite.
My son likes him. Sees him as a decent bloke doing his best against a proven liar and following a complete catastrophe.
Hard to argue with that assessment.
According to the polling your son is the exception...
Well that is clearly nonsense. The polling showed that plenty of people voted Labour, just more people voted for the the bumbling ex-public schoolboy with the puppydog eyes. That brand is appealing for folk at the moment.
We are being mentioned as being one reason the Euro Parliament is traipsing to Strasbourg one week a month, 'cos we never put forward a motion to stop it .
BTW, as much as UK politicians have complained about the Strasbourg travelling circus, they didn't mention it was imposed by London & the other 27 capitals.
However I always thought we should have made more of an issue of the Strasbourg nonsense. Used it as a way to lever some concession from Paris - perhaps reform of CAP?
Because it IS insane and indefensible. Shifting an entire parliament once a month. FFS
Discussing the Labour leader with my son. He came up with a good word I’ve not heard before...
Starmite
Some love him, some not so much.
Isn't the whole problem very few people love him? At best you get he is steady eddie, unlike Boris.
Jezza was the equivalent of a vegan who loved marmite....they really really love it and won't stop telling you all about it. For many others they are instinctly against veganism and / or marmite.
My son likes him. Sees him as a decent bloke doing his best against a proven liar and following a complete catastrophe.
Hard to argue with that assessment.
According to the polling your son is the exception...
Well that is clearly nonsense. The polling showed that plenty of people voted Labour, just more people voted for the the bumbling ex-public schoolboy with the puppydog eyes. That brand is appealing for folk at the moment.
Starmers personal ratings are now worse than Corbyn, but unlike Corbyn he doesn't have a significant base who think he is the second coming.
Its a mixture of meh / better than Boris and he's rubbish. Reminds me of Kim Jong May, few thought she waa the bees knees.
The majorities in Cambridge, Ham & High and Bristol West will go from stratospheric to mesospheric in 2024.
As a left-leaning middle-class professional (on my good days), no I do not “adore” SKS.
He’s crap.
I was a Nandyite, but I did hope for better from SKS. I have been disappointed and Labour need to dump him pronto.
Well, I agree Labour should dump him. They won't, though, Labour are doggedly loyal (as opposed to Labor). There will be no spills.
SKS is not good enough to hold the jolly old Labour party together and to beat Boris & Nicola -- which is basically the tricky task facing whoever leads Labour.
A lot of SKS's problems result from the fact that he was never a politician until he landed with his bum in the butter in Holborn & St Pancras, and then stepped quickly into the Shadow Cabinet.
We are being mentioned as being one reason the Euro Parliament is traipsing to Strasbourg one week a month, 'cos we never put forward a motion to stop it .
BTW, as much as UK politicians have complained about the Strasbourg travelling circus, they didn't mention it was imposed by London & the other 27 capitals.
However I always thought we should have made more of an issue of the Strasbourg nonsense. Used it as a way to lever some concession from Paris - perhaps reform of CAP?
Because it IS insane and indefensible. Shifting an entire parliament once a month. FFS
Problem is it's in the Treaty.
And they are all traumatised by various countries saying Non in 2008, so the current round of Reform (= even more EU, EC hopes) will not be doing Treaty Change.
Discussing the Labour leader with my son. He came up with a good word I’ve not heard before...
Starmite
Some love him, some not so much.
Isn't the whole problem very few people love him? At best you get he is steady eddie, unlike Boris.
Jezza was the equivalent of a vegan who loved marmite....they really really love it and won't stop telling you all about it. For many others they are instinctly against veganism and / or marmite.
My son likes him. Sees him as a decent bloke doing his best against a proven liar and following a complete catastrophe.
Hard to argue with that assessment.
According to the polling your son is the exception...
Well that is clearly nonsense. The polling showed that plenty of people voted Labour, just more people voted for the the bumbling ex-public schoolboy with the puppydog eyes. That brand is appealing for folk at the moment.
Starmers personal ratings are now worse than Corbyn, but unlike Corbyn he doesn't have a significant base who think he is the second coming.
Its a mixture of meh / better than Boris and he's rubbish. Reminds me of Kim Jong May, few thought she waa the bees knees.
We are being mentioned as being one reason the Euro Parliament is traipsing to Strasbourg one week a month, 'cos we never put forward a motion to stop it .
BTW, as much as UK politicians have complained about the Strasbourg travelling circus, they didn't mention it was imposed by London & the other 27 capitals.
However I always thought we should have made more of an issue of the Strasbourg nonsense. Used it as a way to lever some concession from Paris - perhaps reform of CAP?
Because it IS insane and indefensible. Shifting an entire parliament once a month. FFS
Didn't we discuss this a while back - From memory Strasbourg is explicitly mentioned in treaties so the easiest solution would be to close Brussels down and move permanently to Strasbourg
As the weekly vaccination statistics have been updated, I thought I'd see where we are in my home Borough of Newham in East London.
I'm using the published NIMS estimates of population:
There are 353,012 people over 16 in the Borough of whom 123,122 have received a first vaccination and 41,526 a second vaccination.
Among the 88,202 aged 50 and over, 62,763 have received a first vaccination of whom 27,209 have had both vaccinations.
Among the 17,773 aged 70 and over, 14,254 have received a first vaccination of whom 12,086 have had both second vaccination.
So, just under 35% of the total adult (16+) population have had a first vaccination.
Among those more at risk, 71.1% of those over 50 have had a first vaccination and 30.8% have had both vaccinations.
Among those over 70, 80.2% had had a first vaccination and 68% have had both vaccinations.
Put another way, 25,300 people over 50 have had no vaccination. There are a total of 230,000 unvaccinated people over 16 in the Borough so that's your target for the Indian Variant.
As a comparison, Richmond has 79,006 people over 50 of whom 65,913 (83.4%) have had a first vaccination and 37,687 (47.7%) have had a second vaccination.
Those compare with 71.1% and 30.8% respectively in Newham so it's a tale of divergent vaccination programmes. In Newham, a significant minority of those over 50 and potentially at risk have yet to receive a first vaccination and less than a third have received both vaccinations.
The more I look at these numbers, the more I think the Government has called this right - we need to unlock all together as one "Team UK" (apparently) so as much time as possible needs to be given to those areas and communities which are struggling to get the numbers vaccinated.
Arguing the case risk from the Indian Variant is only for the younger age groups ignores the fact of the 25,300 over 50s in Newham who are also currently unprotected.
We are being mentioned as being one reason the Euro Parliament is traipsing to Strasbourg one week a month, 'cos we never put forward a motion to stop it .
BTW, as much as UK politicians have complained about the Strasbourg travelling circus, they didn't mention it was imposed by London & the other 27 capitals.
However I always thought we should have made more of an issue of the Strasbourg nonsense. Used it as a way to lever some concession from Paris - perhaps reform of CAP?
Because it IS insane and indefensible. Shifting an entire parliament once a month. FFS
The French would allow a re-negotiation of the CAP the day after hell froze over.
As Blair found out when he swapped the rebate for a re-negotiation of the CAP. He was called rude and a bit stupid for expecting to get a re-negotiation of the CAP just because it had been promised, IIRC
Some interesting 'helicopter' on long term demographic change and he seems (like me) to come down on the side of the Alternative Narrative, ie Labour should prioritize securing and expanding their new base rather than bust a gut chasing their old one.
Rather fudges things at the end, though, with the conclusion that what Labour really need to get back in the game are policies that will - wait for it - "make Britain richer, fairer, cleaner and more contented."
And he got paid for that, I suppose.
Interesting but especially the fudge at the end suggests that Peter Kellner has no idea how Labour would stitch something coherent together.
He is silent about the absolutely obvious issue: There is one party in the Tory position (call it centre right if you want), and three (+much of SNP policy) in the Labour one (centre left if you like).
The election of 1983 proves beyond reasonable doubt this cannot work.
Now that the LDs have decisively rejected being soft Tories for nice people the only solution is a single centre left party of Lab, LD (and Green if possible), in a deal with the SNP.
Makes much sense. I'd like to see it but don't see it. Not soon anyway. I think the dream of governing alone again will take a long time to die.
Discussing the Labour leader with my son. He came up with a good word I’ve not heard before...
Starmite
Some love him, some not so much.
Isn't the whole problem very few people love him? At best you get he is steady eddie, unlike Boris.
Jezza was the equivalent of a vegan who loved marmite....they really really love it and won't stop telling you all about it. For many others they are instinctly against veganism and / or marmite.
My son likes him. Sees him as a decent bloke doing his best against a proven liar and following a complete catastrophe.
Hard to argue with that assessment.
According to the polling your son is the exception...
Well that is clearly nonsense. The polling showed that plenty of people voted Labour, just more people voted for the the bumbling ex-public schoolboy with the puppydog eyes. That brand is appealing for folk at the moment.
Starmers personal ratings are now worse than Corbyn, but unlike Corbyn he doesn't have a significant base who think he is the second coming.
Its a mixture of meh / better than Boris and he's rubbish. Reminds me of Kim Jong May, few thought she waa the bees knees.
Yours, of course, is not entirely an impartial judgement, particularly as it does not allow for the fact that all the leaders who appeared a lot on the telly through the pandemic have done well, and the fact that the Labour Party itself is in a big mess. Your original comment that was made about a poster's son's views was, as I say, nonsense.
I have no desire for a Labour government, but I think the "Starmer is rubbish" narrative is fundamentally wrong. It is possible that those who want him to fail get enough momentum (excuse the pun) behind that narrative and it becomes impossible for him to shift it, in which case he is politically finished. If he does turn it round it will show he is a character of some significant resilience.
Discussing the Labour leader with my son. He came up with a good word I’ve not heard before...
Starmite
Some love him, some not so much.
Isn't the whole problem very few people love him? At best you get he is steady eddie, unlike Boris.
Jezza was the equivalent of a vegan who loved marmite....they really really love it and won't stop telling you all about it. For many others they are instinctly against veganism and / or marmite.
My son likes him. Sees him as a decent bloke doing his best against a proven liar and following a complete catastrophe.
As the weekly vaccination statistics have been updated, I thought I'd see where we are in my home Borough of Newham in East London.
I'm using the published NIMS estimates of population:
There are 353,012 people over 16 in the Borough of whom 123,122 have received a first vaccination and 41,526 a second vaccination.
Among the 88,202 aged 50 and over, 62,763 have received a first vaccination of whom 27,209 have had both vaccinations.
Among the 17,773 aged 70 and over, 14,254 have received a first vaccination of whom 12,086 have had both second vaccination.
So, just under 35% of the total adult (16+) population have had a first vaccination.
Among those more at risk, 71.1% of those over 50 have had a first vaccination and 30.8% have had both vaccinations.
Among those over 70, 80.2% had had a first vaccination and 68% have had both vaccinations.
Put another way, 25,300 people over 50 have had no vaccination. There are a total of 230,000 unvaccinated people over 16 in the Borough so that's your target for the Indian Variant.
As a comparison, Richmond has 79,006 people over 50 of whom 65,913 (83.4%) have had a first vaccination and 37,687 (47.7%) have had a second vaccination.
Those compare with 71.1% and 30.8% respectively in Newham so it's a tale of divergent vaccination programmes. In Newham, a significant minority of those over 50 and potentially at risk have yet to receive a first vaccination and less than a third have received both vaccinations.
The more I look at these numbers, the more I think the Government has called this right - we need to unlock all together as one "Team UK" (apparently) so as much time as possible needs to be given to those areas and communities which are struggling to get the numbers vaccinated.
Arguing the case risk from the Indian Variant is only for the younger age groups ignores the fact of the 25,300 over 50s in Newham who are also currently unprotected.
Without wishing to be cruel, if people choose to be unvaccinated that is their choice and the consequences of that choice should be theirs. Not extended lockdown for everyone else.
We are being mentioned as being one reason the Euro Parliament is traipsing to Strasbourg one week a month, 'cos we never put forward a motion to stop it .
BTW, as much as UK politicians have complained about the Strasbourg travelling circus, they didn't mention it was imposed by London & the other 27 capitals.
However I always thought we should have made more of an issue of the Strasbourg nonsense. Used it as a way to lever some concession from Paris - perhaps reform of CAP?
Because it IS insane and indefensible. Shifting an entire parliament once a month. FFS
We are being mentioned as being one reason the Euro Parliament is traipsing to Strasbourg one week a month, 'cos we never put forward a motion to stop it .
BTW, as much as UK politicians have complained about the Strasbourg travelling circus, they didn't mention it was imposed by London & the other 27 capitals.
However I always thought we should have made more of an issue of the Strasbourg nonsense. Used it as a way to lever some concession from Paris - perhaps reform of CAP?
Because it IS insane and indefensible. Shifting an entire parliament once a month. FFS
It's embedded in the Maastricht treaty, so changing it would require unanimity and ratification by national parliaments.
On previous thread, Ydoethur asserted that "Erskine May" the primary authority on parliamentary procedure, was in "error" to say that
Parliament is composed of the Sovereign, the House of Lords and the House of Commons. Collectively they form the legislature and as distinct constituent parts of the constitution exercise functions and enjoy privileges peculiar to each.
"An interesting example of how an error can become entrenched because of who makes it. Although now it’s held because of Erskine May’s balls up that the Crown is part of parliament, it is not one of the three estates and therefore historically was not part of parliament."
While I think Y has a point regarding the historical development of Parliament up to the mid 17th century, here is what wikipedia says at start of entry "United Kingdom Political System".
"The political system of the United Kingdom since the Glorious Revolution has been based on the concept that the King in Parliament (also the-Crown-in-Parliament or the-Queen-in-Parliament) has full state authority. It is not the people themselves who are sovereign , but parliament (see parliamentary sovereignty), consisting of the upper house and the lower house , together with the monarch."
SSI2 - The Glorious Revolution of 1688 predating publication of first edition of Erskine May (1844)
Here is quote from conclusion of "Law of the Constitution (1885) by A.V.Dicey, who first popularized the phrase "rule of law" -
"[The] law of the constitution is…the true foundation on which the English polity rests, and it gives in truth even to the conventional element of constitutional law such force as it really possesses.
The law of the constitution, again, is in all its branches the result of two guiding principles, which have been gradually worked out by the more or less conscious efforts of generations of English statesmen and lawyers.
The first of these principles is the sovereignty of Parliament, which means in effect the gradual transfer of power from the Crown to a body which has come more and more to represent the nation. This curious process, by which the personal authority of the King has been turned into the sovereignty of the King in Parliament, has had two effects: it has put an end to the arbitrary powers of the monarch; it has preserved intact and undiminished the supreme authority of the State.
The second of these principles is what I have called “the rule of law”, or the supremacy throughout our institutions of the ordinary law of the land. . . ."
SSI2 - My point is that I believe "Queen/King in Parliament" is the fundamental legal basis for transferring actual governmental power from the Sovereign - the embodiment and personification of state legitimacy - to the Houses of Parliament. Which was & is a pretty big deal.
In elections, only positive votes count - the strength of feeling against you is irrelevant so long as you get more votes than your competition, and so Voting Intention polls only ask respondents who they will vote for, not who they won't... because the second question doesn't matter. Lets imagine such a poll were taken, the question asked "Would you consider voting for the following party; Yes, No or Don't Know" and the results were as follows
Yes No DK Net Con 30 70 0 -40 Lab 23 52 25 -29 LD 8 45 47 -37 SNP 3 38 59 -35 Green 2 40 58 -38 Brexit 1 48 51 -47
Only The Brexit Party are less popular than the Conservatives in net terms.
But of course, we have forgotten that 30% of voters, won't vote! So divide the positive number for each party by 70 (Possible voters minus stay at homes) and the result of an Election would be
Strength of feeling against may well help get out the opposition vote though.
I am not convinced "Starmite" works either. Even those who vote Labour are half hearted about him, and that is a good part of Labour's problem.
No. It's a great word but few other than friends & family "love" SKS right now. The hate is strong and so is the indifference. He has to change that. Can he? Well you say no chance, don't you, but I'm giving him more time.
We are being mentioned as being one reason the Euro Parliament is traipsing to Strasbourg one week a month, 'cos we never put forward a motion to stop it .
BTW, as much as UK politicians have complained about the Strasbourg travelling circus, they didn't mention it was imposed by London & the other 27 capitals.
Why would anybody waste their time asking for something that will 100% get a non.
Comical Dave is not only incredibly biased, he is a moron, as he blows up his own talking point in one tweet.
Its like saying why haven't I asked for a million quid from a client for a job worth about £10k....it obviously means I only ever want a maximum of £10k for that job.
We are being mentioned as being one reason the Euro Parliament is traipsing to Strasbourg one week a month, 'cos we never put forward a motion to stop it .
BTW, as much as UK politicians have complained about the Strasbourg travelling circus, they didn't mention it was imposed by London & the other 27 capitals.
Why would anybody waste their time asking for something that will 100% get a non.
Comical Dave is not only incredibly biased, he is a moron, as he blows up his own talking point in one tweet.
Its like saying why haven't I asked for a million quid from a client for a job worth about £10k....it obviously means I only ever want a maximum of £10k for that job.
If he was intending to be comedic it'd be one thing, but his general tone is that he thinks he is imparting deep, impartial truths, which just makes it sadder. The key is he usually prefaces his dumber remarks with some dig at things supposedly said by other media or politicians, seeking to unravel it, and often fails.
What kind of person cannot even defeat their own strawman?
We are being mentioned as being one reason the Euro Parliament is traipsing to Strasbourg one week a month, 'cos we never put forward a motion to stop it .
BTW, as much as UK politicians have complained about the Strasbourg travelling circus, they didn't mention it was imposed by London & the other 27 capitals.
However I always thought we should have made more of an issue of the Strasbourg nonsense. Used it as a way to lever some concession from Paris - perhaps reform of CAP?
Because it IS insane and indefensible. Shifting an entire parliament once a month. FFS
Didn't we discuss this a while back - From memory Strasbourg is explicitly mentioned in treaties so the easiest solution would be to close Brussels down and move permanently to Strasbourg
Yes, it is, but Strasbourg is also massively unpopular with eurocrats (and around the EU) because they know it makes the EU look bad, and there is not one single rationale to justify it, apart from French narcissism (and greedy restaurateurs in Strasbourg). And it only becomes more anachronistic as the Green lobby grows around the continent. It is so utterly, pointlessly wasteful
Therefore we could have used it as a pressure point, every time they did a Treaty. You want to keep Strasbourg? - then you must pay
France and Germany were shameless about pressuring us on the Rebate, which was also solemnly written into Treaties.
We were never aggressive enough in the EU. Cameron's "renegotiation" was the final, catastrophic example of that truth
As the weekly vaccination statistics have been updated, I thought I'd see where we are in my home Borough of Newham in East London.
I'm using the published NIMS estimates of population:
There are 353,012 people over 16 in the Borough of whom 123,122 have received a first vaccination and 41,526 a second vaccination.
Among the 88,202 aged 50 and over, 62,763 have received a first vaccination of whom 27,209 have had both vaccinations.
Among the 17,773 aged 70 and over, 14,254 have received a first vaccination of whom 12,086 have had both second vaccination.
So, just under 35% of the total adult (16+) population have had a first vaccination.
Among those more at risk, 71.1% of those over 50 have had a first vaccination and 30.8% have had both vaccinations.
Among those over 70, 80.2% had had a first vaccination and 68% have had both vaccinations.
Put another way, 25,300 people over 50 have had no vaccination. There are a total of 230,000 unvaccinated people over 16 in the Borough so that's your target for the Indian Variant.
As a comparison, Richmond has 79,006 people over 50 of whom 65,913 (83.4%) have had a first vaccination and 37,687 (47.7%) have had a second vaccination.
Those compare with 71.1% and 30.8% respectively in Newham so it's a tale of divergent vaccination programmes. In Newham, a significant minority of those over 50 and potentially at risk have yet to receive a first vaccination and less than a third have received both vaccinations.
The more I look at these numbers, the more I think the Government has called this right - we need to unlock all together as one "Team UK" (apparently) so as much time as possible needs to be given to those areas and communities which are struggling to get the numbers vaccinated.
Arguing the case risk from the Indian Variant is only for the younger age groups ignores the fact of the 25,300 over 50s in Newham who are also currently unprotected.
Without wishing to be cruel, if people choose to be unvaccinated that is their choice and the consequences of that choice should be theirs. Not extended lockdown for everyone else.
Not theirs alone, if they block up the intensive care units for the rest of us. And even the vaccinated are still at some risk of catching the pox..
On previous thread, Ydoethur asserted that "Erskine May" the primary authority on parliamentary procedure, was in "error" to say that
Parliament is composed of the Sovereign, the House of Lords and the House of Commons. Collectively they form the legislature and as distinct constituent parts of the constitution exercise functions and enjoy privileges peculiar to each.
"An interesting example of how an error can become entrenched because of who makes it. Although now it’s held because of Erskine May’s balls up that the Crown is part of parliament, it is not one of the three estates and therefore historically was not part of parliament."
While I think Y has a point regarding the historical development of Parliament up to the mid 17th century, here is what wikipedia says at start of entry "United Kingdom Political System".
"The political system of the United Kingdom since the Glorious Revolution has been based on the concept that the King in Parliament (also the-Crown-in-Parliament or the-Queen-in-Parliament) has full state authority. It is not the people themselves who are sovereign , but parliament (see parliamentary sovereignty), consisting of the upper house and the lower house , together with the monarch."
The Glorious Revolution of 1688 predating publication of first edition of Erskine May (1844)
Here is quote from conclusion of "Law of the Constitution (1885) by A.V.Dicey, who first popularized the phrase "rule of law" -
"[The] law of the constitution is…the true foundation on which the English polity rests, and it gives in truth even to the conventional element of constitutional law such force as it really possesses.
The law of the constitution, again, is in all its branches the result of two guiding principles, which have been gradually worked out by the more or less conscious efforts of generations of English statesmen and lawyers.
The first of these principles is the sovereignty of Parliament, which means in effect the gradual transfer of power from the Crown to a body which has come more and more to represent the nation. This curious process, by which the personal authority of the King has been turned into the sovereignty of the King in Parliament, has had two effects: it has put an end to the arbitrary powers of the monarch; it has preserved intact and undiminished the supreme authority of the State.
The second of these principles is what I have called “the rule of law”, or the supremacy throughout our institutions of the ordinary law of the land. . . ."
SSI2 - My point is that I believe "Queen/King in Parliament" is the fundamental legal basis for transferring actual governmental power from the Sovereign - the embodiment and personification of state legitimacy - to the Houses of Parliament. Which was & is a pretty big deal.
I find it implausible that such a thing is a mere error. And even if it was so, at some point, an error accepted for this long becomes real.
We are being mentioned as being one reason the Euro Parliament is traipsing to Strasbourg one week a month, 'cos we never put forward a motion to stop it .
BTW, as much as UK politicians have complained about the Strasbourg travelling circus, they didn't mention it was imposed by London & the other 27 capitals.
However I always thought we should have made more of an issue of the Strasbourg nonsense. Used it as a way to lever some concession from Paris - perhaps reform of CAP?
Because it IS insane and indefensible. Shifting an entire parliament once a month. FFS
Didn't we discuss this a while back - From memory Strasbourg is explicitly mentioned in treaties so the easiest solution would be to close Brussels down and move permanently to Strasbourg
Yes, it is, but Strasbourg is also massively unpopular with eurocrats (and around the EU) because they know it makes the EU look bad, and there is not one single rationale to justify it, apart from French narcissism (and greedy restaurateurs in Strasbourg). And it only becomes more anachronistic as the Green lobby grows around the continent. It is so utterly, pointlessly wasteful
Therefore we could have used it as a pressure point, every time they did a Treaty. You want to keep Strasbourg? - then you must pay
France and Germany were shameless about pressuring us on the Rebate, which was also solemnly written into Treaties.
We were never aggressive enough in the EU. Cameron's "renegotiation" was the final, catastrophic example of that truth
I think the governments leave it in for one because it is not worth the effort to get the French to back down over it, but also because it gives them an easy thing to whack the EU about without having to attack anything fundamental, and given how they tend to overreact to any questioning of things, that might be handy.
As the weekly vaccination statistics have been updated, I thought I'd see where we are in my home Borough of Newham in East London.
I'm using the published NIMS estimates of population:
There are 353,012 people over 16 in the Borough of whom 123,122 have received a first vaccination and 41,526 a second vaccination.
Among the 88,202 aged 50 and over, 62,763 have received a first vaccination of whom 27,209 have had both vaccinations.
Among the 17,773 aged 70 and over, 14,254 have received a first vaccination of whom 12,086 have had both second vaccination.
So, just under 35% of the total adult (16+) population have had a first vaccination.
Among those more at risk, 71.1% of those over 50 have had a first vaccination and 30.8% have had both vaccinations.
Among those over 70, 80.2% had had a first vaccination and 68% have had both vaccinations.
Put another way, 25,300 people over 50 have had no vaccination. There are a total of 230,000 unvaccinated people over 16 in the Borough so that's your target for the Indian Variant.
As a comparison, Richmond has 79,006 people over 50 of whom 65,913 (83.4%) have had a first vaccination and 37,687 (47.7%) have had a second vaccination.
Those compare with 71.1% and 30.8% respectively in Newham so it's a tale of divergent vaccination programmes. In Newham, a significant minority of those over 50 and potentially at risk have yet to receive a first vaccination and less than a third have received both vaccinations.
The more I look at these numbers, the more I think the Government has called this right - we need to unlock all together as one "Team UK" (apparently) so as much time as possible needs to be given to those areas and communities which are struggling to get the numbers vaccinated.
Arguing the case risk from the Indian Variant is only for the younger age groups ignores the fact of the 25,300 over 50s in Newham who are also currently unprotected.
It's tragic that so many people haven't taken the opportunity to be immunised through vaccination, but the reality is that many of the vaccinated and the soi-disant "not at risk" are going to go back to normal next month (if they haven't already). No doubt many of the unvaccinated will be immunised by the disease, or will be taken out of the equation altogether by death.
"Scientists do not believe the Indian variant is likely to blunt the effectiveness of vaccines but have concluded it could well be more transmissible than the Kent variant now dominant in Britain. This would mean a far higher peak of infection in the summer and, as more of those who are still vulnerable catch the virus, thousands more deaths and hospital admissions."
&
"Dominic Cummings, who unsuccessfully attempted to convince Johnson to impose a “circuit breaker” lockdown last September, today retweeted a message from the mathematician Timothy Gowers.
"Gowers said that if there was even a 20 per cent chance that the B.617.2 variant was far more transmissible, “the cost of another big wave is much higher than the cost of delaying the next stage of the road map. The precautionary principle is much stronger when exponential growth is involved.”
Some interesting 'helicopter' on long term demographic change and he seems (like me) to come down on the side of the Alternative Narrative, ie Labour should prioritize securing and expanding their new base rather than bust a gut chasing their old one.
Rather fudges things at the end, though, with the conclusion that what Labour really need to get back in the game are policies that will - wait for it - "make Britain richer, fairer, cleaner and more contented."
And he got paid for that, I suppose.
Can the new Labour Party change its name then as it will no longer, if it does now, represent the labouring classes?
Good point. But the Conservative Party aren't conserving much either.
As the weekly vaccination statistics have been updated, I thought I'd see where we are in my home Borough of Newham in East London.
I'm using the published NIMS estimates of population:
There are 353,012 people over 16 in the Borough of whom 123,122 have received a first vaccination and 41,526 a second vaccination.
Among the 88,202 aged 50 and over, 62,763 have received a first vaccination of whom 27,209 have had both vaccinations.
Among the 17,773 aged 70 and over, 14,254 have received a first vaccination of whom 12,086 have had both second vaccination.
So, just under 35% of the total adult (16+) population have had a first vaccination.
Among those more at risk, 71.1% of those over 50 have had a first vaccination and 30.8% have had both vaccinations.
Among those over 70, 80.2% had had a first vaccination and 68% have had both vaccinations.
Put another way, 25,300 people over 50 have had no vaccination. There are a total of 230,000 unvaccinated people over 16 in the Borough so that's your target for the Indian Variant.
As a comparison, Richmond has 79,006 people over 50 of whom 65,913 (83.4%) have had a first vaccination and 37,687 (47.7%) have had a second vaccination.
Those compare with 71.1% and 30.8% respectively in Newham so it's a tale of divergent vaccination programmes. In Newham, a significant minority of those over 50 and potentially at risk have yet to receive a first vaccination and less than a third have received both vaccinations.
The more I look at these numbers, the more I think the Government has called this right - we need to unlock all together as one "Team UK" (apparently) so as much time as possible needs to be given to those areas and communities which are struggling to get the numbers vaccinated.
Arguing the case risk from the Indian Variant is only for the younger age groups ignores the fact of the 25,300 over 50s in Newham who are also currently unprotected.
Without wishing to be cruel, if people choose to be unvaccinated that is their choice and the consequences of that choice should be theirs. Not extended lockdown for everyone else.
Not theirs alone, if they block up the intensive care units for the rest of us. And even the vaccinated are still at some risk of catching the pox..
The NHS has more than enough capacity to deal with the unvacxed and the very low numbers of vacxed who will need intensive care from covid.
Some interesting 'helicopter' on long term demographic change and he seems (like me) to come down on the side of the Alternative Narrative, ie Labour should prioritize securing and expanding their new base rather than bust a gut chasing their old one.
Rather fudges things at the end, though, with the conclusion that what Labour really need to get back in the game are policies that will - wait for it - "make Britain richer, fairer, cleaner and more contented."
And he got paid for that, I suppose.
As a floating voter (partisans will have their own view), Corbyn Labour only showed interest in fairness - nothing about richer, cleaner or more content, and it felt very likely their policies would lead to poorer and less content.
I am not sure the govt is offering those 4 either, although I can see why some think they are.
If Starmer can convince voters like me he is offering at least 3 from 4 out of richer, fairer, cleaner, more content, with credible policies to go with it, they are on their way to a recovery.
Well the JC era was big on green too. I personally don't think governments can make a country richer. That's magical thinking. Which they encourage of course.
"Scientists do not believe the Indian variant is likely to blunt the effectiveness of vaccines but have concluded it could well be more transmissible than the Kent variant now dominant in Britain. This would mean a far higher peak of infection in the summer and, as more of those who are still vulnerable catch the virus, thousands more deaths and hospital admissions."
&
"Dominic Cummings, who unsuccessfully attempted to convince Johnson to impose a “circuit breaker” lockdown last September, today retweeted a message from the mathematician Timothy Gowers.
"Gowers said that if there was even a 20 per cent chance that the B.617.2 variant was far more transmissible, “the cost of another big wave is much higher than the cost of delaying the next stage of the road map. The precautionary principle is much stronger when exponential growth is involved.”
Except effectively all the vulnerable have been vaccinated and so they're not at real risk anymore. Haven't for a long time. 🤦♂️
By 21 June then all vaccines done by 31 May will be live and active.
120% of nothing is nothing. 200% of nothing is nothing. 1000% of nothing is nothing.
"Queen/King in Parliament" was and still is a device so that legally all LEGITIMATE state authority belongs to the Crown - and that the Crown transfers its powers, especially THE final say so, to the Houses of Parliament. Originally both houses, but of course the preeminent legislative power is the House of Commons, and executive power is concentrated in the Cabinet directly responsible to the Commons.
So Queen in Parliament is rather like the Holy Trinity (and may have been suggested by it?). That is (bear with me!) the Crown as God the Father (or Mother), House of Commons God the Son, and House of Lords the Holy Ghost. Or something like that.
May sound (and is) slightly bonkers. But it does provide a theoretical construct (if you have faith!) that allows for Britons (or Northern Irish if they are inclined) including Lords & Commons to bow to the Queen and her authority, while permitting Parliament to run the show.
Some interesting 'helicopter' on long term demographic change and he seems (like me) to come down on the side of the Alternative Narrative, ie Labour should prioritize securing and expanding their new base rather than bust a gut chasing their old one.
Rather fudges things at the end, though, with the conclusion that what Labour really need to get back in the game are policies that will - wait for it - "make Britain richer, fairer, cleaner and more contented."
And he got paid for that, I suppose.
As a floating voter (partisans will have their own view), Corbyn Labour only showed interest in fairness - nothing about richer, cleaner or more content, and it felt very likely their policies would lead to poorer and less content.
I am not sure the govt is offering those 4 either, although I can see why some think they are.
If Starmer can convince voters like me he is offering at least 3 from 4 out of richer, fairer, cleaner, more content, with credible policies to go with it, they are on their way to a recovery.
Well the JC era was big on green too. I personally don't think governments can make a country richer. That's magical thinking. Which they encourage of course.
As I said partisans will have their own view, and all parties' partisans like to think they are green. It didnt come across to me at all, and I was listening.
Does Brexit, on average, make us poorer? If the answer to that is yes, then govts can make us richer or poorer. 2019 was a choice of two main parties offering to make us poorer.
On previous thread, Ydoethur asserted that "Erskine May" the primary authority on parliamentary procedure, was in "error" to say that
Parliament is composed of the Sovereign, the House of Lords and the House of Commons. Collectively they form the legislature and as distinct constituent parts of the constitution exercise functions and enjoy privileges peculiar to each.
"An interesting example of how an error can become entrenched because of who makes it. Although now it’s held because of Erskine May’s balls up that the Crown is part of parliament, it is not one of the three estates and therefore historically was not part of parliament."
While I think Y has a point regarding the historical development of Parliament up to the mid 17th century, here is what wikipedia says at start of entry "United Kingdom Political System".
"The political system of the United Kingdom since the Glorious Revolution has been based on the concept that the King in Parliament (also the-Crown-in-Parliament or the-Queen-in-Parliament) has full state authority. It is not the people themselves who are sovereign , but parliament (see parliamentary sovereignty), consisting of the upper house and the lower house , together with the monarch."
The Glorious Revolution of 1688 predating publication of first edition of Erskine May (1844)
Here is quote from conclusion of "Law of the Constitution (1885) by A.V.Dicey, who first popularized the phrase "rule of law" -
"[The] law of the constitution is…the true foundation on which the English polity rests, and it gives in truth even to the conventional element of constitutional law such force as it really possesses.
The law of the constitution, again, is in all its branches the result of two guiding principles, which have been gradually worked out by the more or less conscious efforts of generations of English statesmen and lawyers.
The first of these principles is the sovereignty of Parliament, which means in effect the gradual transfer of power from the Crown to a body which has come more and more to represent the nation. This curious process, by which the personal authority of the King has been turned into the sovereignty of the King in Parliament, has had two effects: it has put an end to the arbitrary powers of the monarch; it has preserved intact and undiminished the supreme authority of the State.
The second of these principles is what I have called “the rule of law”, or the supremacy throughout our institutions of the ordinary law of the land. . . ."
SSI2 - My point is that I believe "Queen/King in Parliament" is the fundamental legal basis for transferring actual governmental power from the Sovereign - the embodiment and personification of state legitimacy - to the Houses of Parliament. Which was & is a pretty big deal.
I find it implausible that such a thing is a mere error. And even if it was so, at some point, an error accepted for this long becomes real.
Sorry I am late to this discussion, so not sure what underlies it, but maybe it relevant to the issue that no Act of parliament has force until the monarch has agreed to it; and that the residual power of a monarch to decline - never used in modern times - is one of the constitutional checks against parliamentary arbitrary and irrational action. Is the monarch not therefore an essential element of parliament?
Also the monarch does not enter the H o C as of right (she isn't a member of the club), but I think does enter the H o L as of right. Is this relevant?
"Scientists do not believe the Indian variant is likely to blunt the effectiveness of vaccines but have concluded it could well be more transmissible than the Kent variant now dominant in Britain. This would mean a far higher peak of infection in the summer and, as more of those who are still vulnerable catch the virus, thousands more deaths and hospital admissions."
&
"Dominic Cummings, who unsuccessfully attempted to convince Johnson to impose a “circuit breaker” lockdown last September, today retweeted a message from the mathematician Timothy Gowers.
"Gowers said that if there was even a 20 per cent chance that the B.617.2 variant was far more transmissible, “the cost of another big wave is much higher than the cost of delaying the next stage of the road map. The precautionary principle is much stronger when exponential growth is involved.”
Except effectively all the vulnerable have been vaccinated and so they're not at real risk anymore. Haven't for a long time. 🤦♂️
By 21 June then all vaccines done by 31 May will be live and active.
120% of nothing is nothing. 200% of nothing is nothing. 1000% of nothing is nothing.
I'm not talking about the maths, I'm talking about the hints now coming out
We know how this government works, we know how Boris thinks. He is optimistic and bouncy, until he isn't, and he panics and does something "too late". Just before he panics you can see the fear in his eyes, and various people emit nervous squeaks. Like this
I have a serious fear they are gonna lock us down again, or delay unlockdown, in some form
There is also a big political point here. If the narrative takes hold that we have lost control - AGAIN - because Boris closed the border with India too late (which he did) then the Tories will crater. Starmite will be king by Christmas
"Queen/King in Parliament" was and still is a device so that legally all LEGITIMATE state authority belongs to the Crown - and that the Crown transfers its powers, especially THE final say so, to the Houses of Parliament. Originally both houses, but of course the preeminent legislative power is the House of Commons, and executive power is concentrated in the Cabinet directly responsible to the Commons.
So Queen in Parliament is rather like the Holy Trinity (and may have been suggested by it?). That is (bear with me!) the Crown as God the Father (or Mother), House of Commons God the Son, and House of Lords the Holy Ghost. Or something like that.
May sound (and is) slightly bonkers. But it does provide a theoretical construct (if you have faith!) that allows for Britons (or Northern Irish if they are inclined) including Lords & Commons to bow to the Queen and her authority, while permitting Parliament to run the show.
The final say hasn’t been transferred. That’s royal assent.
"Scientists do not believe the Indian variant is likely to blunt the effectiveness of vaccines but have concluded it could well be more transmissible than the Kent variant now dominant in Britain. This would mean a far higher peak of infection in the summer and, as more of those who are still vulnerable catch the virus, thousands more deaths and hospital admissions."
&
"Dominic Cummings, who unsuccessfully attempted to convince Johnson to impose a “circuit breaker” lockdown last September, today retweeted a message from the mathematician Timothy Gowers.
"Gowers said that if there was even a 20 per cent chance that the B.617.2 variant was far more transmissible, “the cost of another big wave is much higher than the cost of delaying the next stage of the road map. The precautionary principle is much stronger when exponential growth is involved.”
Except effectively all the vulnerable have been vaccinated and so they're not at real risk anymore. Haven't for a long time. 🤦♂️
By 21 June then all vaccines done by 31 May will be live and active.
120% of nothing is nothing. 200% of nothing is nothing. 1000% of nothing is nothing.
Go and read what Stodge posted below - there are places were we are no where close to Herd Immunity - even you frankly wrong definition of it let alone the real definition.
As the weekly vaccination statistics have been updated, I thought I'd see where we are in my home Borough of Newham in East London.
I'm using the published NIMS estimates of population:
There are 353,012 people over 16 in the Borough of whom 123,122 have received a first vaccination and 41,526 a second vaccination.
Among the 88,202 aged 50 and over, 62,763 have received a first vaccination of whom 27,209 have had both vaccinations.
Among the 17,773 aged 70 and over, 14,254 have received a first vaccination of whom 12,086 have had both second vaccination.
So, just under 35% of the total adult (16+) population have had a first vaccination.
Among those more at risk, 71.1% of those over 50 have had a first vaccination and 30.8% have had both vaccinations.
Among those over 70, 80.2% had had a first vaccination and 68% have had both vaccinations.
Put another way, 25,300 people over 50 have had no vaccination. There are a total of 230,000 unvaccinated people over 16 in the Borough so that's your target for the Indian Variant.
As a comparison, Richmond has 79,006 people over 50 of whom 65,913 (83.4%) have had a first vaccination and 37,687 (47.7%) have had a second vaccination.
Those compare with 71.1% and 30.8% respectively in Newham so it's a tale of divergent vaccination programmes. In Newham, a significant minority of those over 50 and potentially at risk have yet to receive a first vaccination and less than a third have received both vaccinations.
The more I look at these numbers, the more I think the Government has called this right - we need to unlock all together as one "Team UK" (apparently) so as much time as possible needs to be given to those areas and communities which are struggling to get the numbers vaccinated.
Arguing the case risk from the Indian Variant is only for the younger age groups ignores the fact of the 25,300 over 50s in Newham who are also currently unprotected.
Without wishing to be cruel, if people choose to be unvaccinated that is their choice and the consequences of that choice should be theirs. Not extended lockdown for everyone else.
Not theirs alone, if they block up the intensive care units for the rest of us. And even the vaccinated are still at some risk of catching the pox..
The NHS has more than enough capacity to deal with the unvacxed and the very low numbers of vacxed who will need intensive care from covid.
It comes back to the MMR style debate on herd immunity and the selfishness of those who don't take the vaccine, when they can.
"Scientists do not believe the Indian variant is likely to blunt the effectiveness of vaccines but have concluded it could well be more transmissible than the Kent variant now dominant in Britain. This would mean a far higher peak of infection in the summer and, as more of those who are still vulnerable catch the virus, thousands more deaths and hospital admissions."
&
"Dominic Cummings, who unsuccessfully attempted to convince Johnson to impose a “circuit breaker” lockdown last September, today retweeted a message from the mathematician Timothy Gowers.
"Gowers said that if there was even a 20 per cent chance that the B.617.2 variant was far more transmissible, “the cost of another big wave is much higher than the cost of delaying the next stage of the road map. The precautionary principle is much stronger when exponential growth is involved.”
The collective nappy wetting on here as the white smoke from SAGE is awaited would be funny if it weren't so utterly pitiful.
"Scientists do not believe the Indian variant is likely to blunt the effectiveness of vaccines but have concluded it could well be more transmissible than the Kent variant now dominant in Britain. This would mean a far higher peak of infection in the summer and, as more of those who are still vulnerable catch the virus, thousands more deaths and hospital admissions."
&
"Dominic Cummings, who unsuccessfully attempted to convince Johnson to impose a “circuit breaker” lockdown last September, today retweeted a message from the mathematician Timothy Gowers.
"Gowers said that if there was even a 20 per cent chance that the B.617.2 variant was far more transmissible, “the cost of another big wave is much higher than the cost of delaying the next stage of the road map. The precautionary principle is much stronger when exponential growth is involved.”
The local lockdowns will be the stick to get Stodge's neighbours to take the vaccine.
On previous thread, Ydoethur asserted that "Erskine May" the primary authority on parliamentary procedure, was in "error" to say that
Parliament is composed of the Sovereign, the House of Lords and the House of Commons. Collectively they form the legislature and as distinct constituent parts of the constitution exercise functions and enjoy privileges peculiar to each.
"An interesting example of how an error can become entrenched because of who makes it. Although now it’s held because of Erskine May’s balls up that the Crown is part of parliament, it is not one of the three estates and therefore historically was not part of parliament."
While I think Y has a point regarding the historical development of Parliament up to the mid 17th century, here is what wikipedia says at start of entry "United Kingdom Political System".
"The political system of the United Kingdom since the Glorious Revolution has been based on the concept that the King in Parliament (also the-Crown-in-Parliament or the-Queen-in-Parliament) has full state authority. It is not the people themselves who are sovereign , but parliament (see parliamentary sovereignty), consisting of the upper house and the lower house , together with the monarch."
The Glorious Revolution of 1688 predating publication of first edition of Erskine May (1844)
Here is quote from conclusion of "Law of the Constitution (1885) by A.V.Dicey, who first popularized the phrase "rule of law" -
"[The] law of the constitution is…the true foundation on which the English polity rests, and it gives in truth even to the conventional element of constitutional law such force as it really possesses.
The law of the constitution, again, is in all its branches the result of two guiding principles, which have been gradually worked out by the more or less conscious efforts of generations of English statesmen and lawyers.
The first of these principles is the sovereignty of Parliament, which means in effect the gradual transfer of power from the Crown to a body which has come more and more to represent the nation. This curious process, by which the personal authority of the King has been turned into the sovereignty of the King in Parliament, has had two effects: it has put an end to the arbitrary powers of the monarch; it has preserved intact and undiminished the supreme authority of the State.
The second of these principles is what I have called “the rule of law”, or the supremacy throughout our institutions of the ordinary law of the land. . . ."
SSI2 - My point is that I believe "Queen/King in Parliament" is the fundamental legal basis for transferring actual governmental power from the Sovereign - the embodiment and personification of state legitimacy - to the Houses of Parliament. Which was & is a pretty big deal.
I find it implausible that such a thing is a mere error. And even if it was so, at some point, an error accepted for this long becomes real.
Ydoethur is absolutely correct re: the historical development up to the Glorious Revolution. But once they'd run James II out of the Dodge, the "revolutionaries" wanted to lay a solid foundation for a regime that would keep the monarchy but ensure that it could never assert its power over Parliament. The solution - make King William & Queen Mary (co-sovereigns until she died) and their successors a PART of Parliament itself.
Comments
He is silent about the absolutely obvious issue: There is one party in the Tory position (call it centre right if you want), and three (+much of SNP policy) in the Labour one (centre left if you like).
The election of 1983 proves beyond reasonable doubt this cannot work.
Now that the LDs have decisively rejected being soft Tories for nice people the only solution is a single centre left party of Lab, LD (and Green if possible), in a deal with the SNP.
I am not sure the govt is offering those 4 either, although I can see why some think they are.
If Starmer can convince voters like me he is offering at least 3 from 4 out of richer, fairer, cleaner, more content, with credible policies to go with it, they are on their way to a recovery.
"Number of people with at least one positive COVID-19 test result, either lab-reported or rapid lateral flow test (England only), by specimen date. Positive rapid lateral flow test results can be confirmed with PCR tests taken within 72 hours. If the PCR test results are negative, these are not reported as cases. People tested positive more than once are only counted once, on the date of their first positive test."
To me, Lancaster seems more like Kendal than it does like most of Lancashire. And Kendal seems not unlike Grange . It's Barrow and Millom that are the anomalies - working class industrial islands in miles and miles of bucolia - not to mention both at the end of long peninsulas. They're not even convenient for each other.
Kieran Pedley of IPSIS-MORI on twitter
“Also from @IpsosMORI today - what about the Prime Minister? A divisive figure...
40% favourable
40% unfavourable
But remember, in FPTP land, having 40% like you is not the worst position to be in.”
http://aboutasfarasdelgados.blogspot.com/2021/03/the-optical-illusion-of-net-ratings.html
I’m going somewhere. 🥳
An interesting little piece about working class Tories / Labour paternalism from an LD who fought his first ward in 1963.
https://www.libdemvoice.org/the-long-history-of-working-class-tories-and-labour-paternalism-67675.html
and a related letter he had in the G last week:
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/jul/30/best-foot-forward-for-the-lib-dems
https://twitter.com/HugoGye/status/1392846599777292293?s=19
And further analysis show it has nothing to down with poverty / deprivation, as across all groups is roughly the same as a whole.
If they were sending a message it completely blew up in their faces.
Burnham got very close to grandstanding and risking lives, but I don't think that was his intent and it's hats off to all of the politicians that have had to confront these really tough times. Overall I think that the public was quite well served by the political class.
(Some of the dafter elements seemed to entirely vanish, and are only now reappearing in places like Hackney.)
Starmite
Some love him, some not so much.
Yes No DK Net
Con 30 70 0 -40
Lab 23 52 25 -29
LD 8 45 47 -37
SNP 3 38 59 -35
Green 2 40 58 -38
Brexit 1 48 51 -47
Only The Brexit Party are less popular than the Conservatives in net terms.
But of course, we have forgotten that 30% of voters, won't vote! So divide the positive number for each party by 70 (Possible voters minus stay at homes) and the result of an Election would be
Con 43%
Lab 33 %
LD 11%
SNP 4%
Green 3%
Brexit 1%
http://aboutasfarasdelgados.blogspot.com/2021/03/the-optical-illusion-of-net-ratings.htm
I imagine it goes against every fibre of their being to be seen to play nice with Boris and the Tories.
National Parks are also Local Planning Authorities.
I prefer LAs to be smallish - it is always interesting that France seems to have more functions at a more local level than we do. I would like to see Parish Councils beefed up a little.
Jezza was the equivalent of a vegan who loved marmite....they really really love it and won't stop telling you all about it. For many others they are instinctly against veganism and / or marmite.
What do you mean?
Which translates, I think, as "Moderate UK voters should not have voted for a moderate and peaceful democratic change so that NI voters can safely carry on voting for outrageously extremist parties".
She's very far from the worst of noisy but useless politicians though, I just chose her because I imagined that people would get the 'Hackney' bit - clearly though I was wrong
I am not convinced "Starmite" works either. Even those who vote Labour are half hearted about him, and that is a good part of Labour's problem.
https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-citizens-detained-uk-work-visas-brexit/
There has been a very aggressive LTN scheme but most people have come round to it I think.
Diane is a near neighbour of mine. Occasionally she passes my house on the way to the bus stop.
She’d have been an awful HS, but no more awful and maybe better than Patel.
Hard to argue with that assessment.
Left-leaning middle-class professionals adore 'forensic' SKS.
The majorities in Cambridge, Ham & High and Bristol West will go from stratospheric to mesospheric in 2024.
We are being mentioned as being one reason the Euro Parliament is traipsing to Strasbourg one week a month, 'cos we never put forward a motion to stop it
BTW, as much as UK politicians have complained about the Strasbourg travelling circus, they didn't mention it was imposed by London & the other 27 capitals.
No UK PM ever attempted to end it. They never asked for a Council vote. France would veto, but they've never been made to.
https://twitter.com/DaveKeating/status/1392387220934385665
He’s crap.
I was a Nandyite, but I did hope for better from SKS. I have been disappointed and Labour need to dump him pronto.
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/about-ofcom/latest/features-and-news/ofcom-to-regulate-harmful-content-online
"Does this mean Ofcom will be censoring the internet?
We won’t censor the web or social media. Free expression is the lifeblood of the internet and it’s central to our democracy, values and modern society.
Our role in upholding broadcasting standards for TV and radio programmes means we’ve gained extensive experience of protecting audiences from harm while upholding freedom of expression. An important part of our job will be to ensure online platforms do the same with their systems and processes."
This is Orwellian. A simpler answer would be 'Yes'.
He thought he was going to be minted. He ended up with nothing and his reputation trashed.
Comical Dave is not only incredibly biased, he is a moron, as he blows up his own talking point in one tweet.
Its like saying why haven't I asked for a million quid from a client for a job worth about £10k....it obviously means I only ever want a maximum of £10k for that job.
There is a process for families and others who are interested in digging up and revisiting these old stories to do so. They did. Due process was followed. It isn't the government's job to short-circuit that by initiating it themselves without a reason to do so.
Lets look at it from the other way - the Savile report dealt with what it was tasked to do, if they then should have revisited this, then what should be revisited now in response to Ballymurphy? Or was Ballymurphy the last possible issue?
If you keep turning up rocks from the past I'm sure you'll find worms from half a century ago, but where do you stop? Where do you go next? And when do you let sleeping dogs lie? And when do you decide to let due process be followed as has happened here.
However I always thought we should have made more of an issue of the Strasbourg nonsense. Used it as a way to lever some concession from Paris - perhaps reform of CAP?
Because it IS insane and indefensible. Shifting an entire parliament once a month. FFS
Its a mixture of meh / better than Boris and he's rubbish. Reminds me of Kim Jong May, few thought she waa the bees knees.
SKS is not good enough to hold the jolly old Labour party together and to beat Boris & Nicola -- which is basically the tricky task facing whoever leads Labour.
A lot of SKS's problems result from the fact that he was never a politician until he landed with his bum in the butter in Holborn & St Pancras, and then stepped quickly into the Shadow Cabinet.
And they are all traumatised by various countries saying Non in 2008, so the current round of Reform (= even more EU, EC hopes) will not be doing Treaty Change.
As the weekly vaccination statistics have been updated, I thought I'd see where we are in my home Borough of Newham in East London.
I'm using the published NIMS estimates of population:
There are 353,012 people over 16 in the Borough of whom 123,122 have received a first vaccination and 41,526 a second vaccination.
Among the 88,202 aged 50 and over, 62,763 have received a first vaccination of whom 27,209 have had both vaccinations.
Among the 17,773 aged 70 and over, 14,254 have received a first vaccination of whom 12,086 have had both second vaccination.
So, just under 35% of the total adult (16+) population have had a first vaccination.
Among those more at risk, 71.1% of those over 50 have had a first vaccination and 30.8% have had both vaccinations.
Among those over 70, 80.2% had had a first vaccination and 68% have had both vaccinations.
Put another way, 25,300 people over 50 have had no vaccination. There are a total of 230,000 unvaccinated people over 16 in the Borough so that's your target for the Indian Variant.
As a comparison, Richmond has 79,006 people over 50 of whom 65,913 (83.4%) have had a first vaccination and 37,687 (47.7%) have had a second vaccination.
Those compare with 71.1% and 30.8% respectively in Newham so it's a tale of divergent vaccination programmes. In Newham, a significant minority of those over 50 and potentially at risk have yet to receive a first vaccination and less than a third have received both vaccinations.
The more I look at these numbers, the more I think the Government has called this right - we need to unlock all together as one "Team UK" (apparently) so as much time as possible needs to be given to those areas and communities which are struggling to get the numbers vaccinated.
Arguing the case risk from the Indian Variant is only for the younger age groups ignores the fact of the 25,300 over 50s in Newham who are also currently unprotected.
As Blair found out when he swapped the rebate for a re-negotiation of the CAP. He was called rude and a bit stupid for expecting to get a re-negotiation of the CAP just because it had been promised, IIRC
His results so far are awful precisely because hardly anyone loves him
I have no desire for a Labour government, but I think the "Starmer is rubbish" narrative is fundamentally wrong. It is possible that those who want him to fail get enough momentum (excuse the pun) behind that narrative and it becomes impossible for him to shift it, in which case he is politically finished. If he does turn it round it will show he is a character of some significant resilience.
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/faq/19/why-does-parliament-move-between-brussels-and-strasbourg
Parliament is composed of the Sovereign, the House of Lords and the House of Commons. Collectively they form the legislature and as distinct constituent parts of the constitution exercise functions and enjoy privileges peculiar to each.
https://erskinemay.parliament.uk/section/4499/introduction-to-the-constituent-parts-of-parliament/
Ydoethur's comment on this was -
"An interesting example of how an error can become entrenched because of who makes it. Although now it’s held because of Erskine May’s balls up that the Crown is part of parliament, it is not one of the three estates and therefore historically was not part of parliament."
While I think Y has a point regarding the historical development of Parliament up to the mid 17th century, here is what wikipedia says at start of entry "United Kingdom Political System".
"The political system of the United Kingdom since the Glorious Revolution has been based on the concept that the King in Parliament (also the-Crown-in-Parliament or the-Queen-in-Parliament) has full state authority. It is not the people themselves who are sovereign , but parliament (see parliamentary sovereignty), consisting of the upper house and the lower house , together with the monarch."
SSI2 - The Glorious Revolution of 1688 predating publication of first edition of Erskine May (1844)
Here is quote from conclusion of "Law of the Constitution (1885) by A.V.Dicey, who first popularized the phrase "rule of law" -
"[The] law of the constitution is…the true foundation on which the English polity rests, and it gives in truth even to the conventional element of constitutional law such force as it really possesses.
The law of the constitution, again, is in all its branches the result of two guiding principles, which have been gradually worked out by the more or less conscious efforts of generations of English statesmen and lawyers.
The first of these principles is the sovereignty of Parliament, which means in effect the gradual transfer of power from the Crown to a body which has come more and more to represent the nation. This curious process, by which the personal authority of the King has been turned into the sovereignty of the King in Parliament, has had two effects: it has put an end to the arbitrary powers of the monarch; it has preserved intact and undiminished the supreme authority of the State.
The second of these principles is what I have called “the rule of law”, or the supremacy throughout our institutions of the ordinary law of the land. . . ."
SSI2 - My point is that I believe "Queen/King in Parliament" is the fundamental legal basis for transferring actual governmental power from the Sovereign - the embodiment and personification of state legitimacy - to the Houses of Parliament. Which was & is a pretty big deal.
What kind of person cannot even defeat their own strawman?
Therefore we could have used it as a pressure point, every time they did a Treaty. You want to keep Strasbourg? - then you must pay
France and Germany were shameless about pressuring us on the Rebate, which was also solemnly written into Treaties.
We were never aggressive enough in the EU. Cameron's "renegotiation" was the final, catastrophic example of that truth
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/indian-variant-will-get-everywhere-hstwwknl0
All the smoke signals are quite bad. See here
"Scientists do not believe the Indian variant is likely to blunt the effectiveness of vaccines but have concluded it could well be more transmissible than the Kent variant now dominant in Britain. This would mean a far higher peak of infection in the summer and, as more of those who are still vulnerable catch the virus, thousands more deaths and hospital admissions."
&
"Dominic Cummings, who unsuccessfully attempted to convince Johnson to impose a “circuit breaker” lockdown last September, today retweeted a message from the mathematician Timothy Gowers.
"Gowers said that if there was even a 20 per cent chance that the B.617.2 variant was far more transmissible, “the cost of another big wave is much higher than the cost of delaying the next stage of the road map. The precautionary principle is much stronger when exponential growth is involved.”
By 21 June then all vaccines done by 31 May will be live and active.
120% of nothing is nothing. 200% of nothing is nothing. 1000% of nothing is nothing.
So Queen in Parliament is rather like the Holy Trinity (and may have been suggested by it?). That is (bear with me!) the Crown as God the Father (or Mother), House of Commons God the Son, and House of Lords the Holy Ghost. Or something like that.
May sound (and is) slightly bonkers. But it does provide a theoretical construct (if you have faith!) that allows for Britons (or Northern Irish if they are inclined) including Lords & Commons to bow to the Queen and her authority, while permitting Parliament to run the show.
Does Brexit, on average, make us poorer? If the answer to that is yes, then govts can make us richer or poorer. 2019 was a choice of two main parties offering to make us poorer.
Also the monarch does not enter the H o C as of right (she isn't a member of the club), but I think does enter the H o L as of right. Is this relevant?
We know how this government works, we know how Boris thinks. He is optimistic and bouncy, until he isn't, and he panics and does something "too late". Just before he panics you can see the fear in his eyes, and various people emit nervous squeaks. Like this
I have a serious fear they are gonna lock us down again, or delay unlockdown, in some form
There is also a big political point here. If the narrative takes hold that we have lost control - AGAIN - because Boris closed the border with India too late (which he did) then the Tories will crater. Starmite will be king by Christmas