On topic it seems to me that the Lib Dems are dying. Their poor performance in the Scottish Parliamentary elections included the painful reality that they did not get a single list seat being entirely dependent on a few constituencies which are in turn fairly dependent upon personal votes. Their performance in Airdrie and Shotts was as derisory as their performance in Hartlepool.
Damning stat of the day:
Only one Liberal Democrat Westminster seat has been held by two or more (actually, three) consecutive Liberal Democrat MPs. All the others were won from another party by the current incumbent.
Three MPs - but their service spans over 70 years.
Presumably Grimond's old seat?
Yes - Orkney and Shetland.
Although I was in fact not quite correct. I had forgotten Vince Cable had returned to Parliament (pretty damning of his performance given he was also leader for a time!) so Twickenham has been held by consecutive Lib Dems as well.
However, Orkney and Shetland is the only seat held continuously since the start of the millennium. It is one of only two to have returned a Liberal Democrat MP at three or more consecutive elections. And it is the only current seat where three Liberal Democrat MPs have been consecutively returned for the party or where more than one has won multiple elections.
Now that shows a party with no heartland.
That also shows a party with the potential to fall further...
The article suggests that she has concluded that the holiday was worth more than what was declared. Her basis for doing so is a daily rate. But 10 days may well achieve a discount. If she has evidence that the true cost was higher she should produce it. Given the somewhat opaque methods and unwillingness to cooperate by the company managing the villas I very much doubt that she has this.
She has also concluded that Mr Ross did not pay for this. Mr Ross denied paying for it originally but now says that he did. Again, what is her evidence or her basis for rejecting what Mr Ross is now saying? The answer seems to be that it wasn't in fact his villa but that has been answered.
I have no doubt that Boris has been unhelpful and uncooperative here but unless she has more material than has been made public to date it seems to me that at most she has some questions rather than assertions.
Boris can always say that "At the price she is suggesting it should have cost, I wouldn't have taken it. Not remotely worth the grief."
If a suite at the Ritz was unoccupied at 10 pm and was offered for £200 instead of £1,000, just get some income rather than zero, it is not right that the "value" should be declared as £1,000.
Or Johnson and eBay Melania could pay for their own holidays to avoid months of obfuscation and suspicion. That's always an option.
Perhaps Boris needs to work on his "dwindled and haggard" look, after dealing with Covid? Then he'd get freebies....
"Cliff Richard lent his house in Barbados to Tony Blair and his family after he saw the prime minister looking "dwindled and haggard" during the war in Iraq, the singer reveals in the Guardian today."
Most of us pay for our own holidays, don't we? Those of us on the left disapproved of Blair benefiting from freebies just as much as we disapprove of Boris benefiting from freebies, so I don't see your point. It doesn't really matter whether it's £15k or £30K; it's a free luxury holiday that red wall voters can only dream of.
I've stayed at good friends' places abroad for free or knockdown prices. I don't think it's all that unusual. And I think a lot of those red wall voters could easily imagine themselves accepting a freebie if they had the chance!
I didn't say it was that unusual. And of course most of us would accept freebies. But I rather suspect that it's only the already wealthy who would be offered a freebie worth £15/30K.
Naughty David, a blatant attempt to try and split the anti Tory vote and a lead that is more polemic than analysis!
The anti-Tory vote *is* split. That's why there are different parties. The chimera that there are simply pro- and anti-Tory voters is the mirage that the centre-left has been chasing for at least a quarter of a century, Coalition notwithstanding.
Besides, I'm not a Tory any more and have no partisan interest in their success. I voted Yorkshire Party in the W Yorks mayoral and spoiled my ballot (for the first time, by writing a limerick on it) for the council election.
Why so disaffected with the Wakefield Conservatives ?
I can understand you so being with Boris and his gang but why at local level as well ?
Mostly run like a private club in the interests of already-elected councillors.
But I wouldn't differentiate between the two. I didn't feel I could reasonably stay within the party at large if I couldn't recommend to people to vote for it at the election which was clearly coming - and indeed, didn't know how I'd vote myself at that time.
Agree with everyone else; thanks Mr H for the thoughtful contributions over the years. I always wonder whether politics, and indeed life, is like tides. Which are, after all, very basic features of life on Earth. And while tides come in and out inexorably, they don't do so without a certain amount of to and fro. Although a few years ago the Greens made a massive advance and then fell back, they didn't fall back quite as far. So I think they'll fall back from this, but again not quite as far, and the next time they advance they'll do so to a higher point. Of, course, as well, 'there is a ride in the affairs of men, which, taken on the flood, leads on to fortune."
As a one time Lib activist and sometime LD party member and voter, I wonder whether the mess-up over the Coalition won't prove fatal. Once tides start to go out, they can't be stopped.
Tides do, of course, stop in time but yes, I don't think many Lib Dems realise quite how existential the crisis facing their party is. So many still seem to believe in the magic power of the isolated by-election, as here.
It's no longer enough to just be 'not the other two': there are other options available for that, and each with a much stronger identity and set of principles. Fuzzy localism is fine of itself but - as in 2010 - is a strategic dead-end because it all falls apart when the weak tactical votes face are confronted with the realities of power.
There is a very real chance that the Greens could supplant them, though that involves a considerable amount of agency on the part of both parties and, as I mentioned in the header, I'm far from convinced that the Greens have the mindset to capitalise on the opportunity.
Well, they got me voting for them last week because they tried Liberalism.
There's an obvious space for them in an age of state control, ever greater impingments on personal privacy, restricted choice, caveated freedoms and attitudes to identity so extreme they become illiberal - but I don't see them taking it.
It's not even that hard to get started. All it takes is for Ed Davey to say to the media he's going to give a powerful speech on what it means to be liberal and the future of liberalism, very well trailed, and then give a very good speech which is well briefed out afterwards.
That'd be a start.
I would be very tempted to vote for the LDs as a traditionally liberal party except the two worst people I ever met who were politicians were LDs. I met good and bad people from many other parties but those two stood out for me as nasty and deceitful scumbags.
It's worth mentioning the Green success earlier in the month was partly the result of "informal" deals with the LDs and other parties.
I had a closer look at Surrey where the Conservatives lost 14 seats and particularly at the Guildford divisions.
In Shere, the LDs didn't stand but the Greens stood against the Guildford Greenbelt Group splitting the anti-Conservative vote and allowing the Conservatives to hold the seat by just 78. With the Greens winning 862 votes, it's fair to say had the Greens not stood, the Conservatives would have lost the seat.
In Guildford South-East, the Greens didn't stand but the LDs did but the Conservative still lost, this time to the Residents for Guildford and Villages (RGV), who did so well in the 2019 Borough elections.
In Guildford West, the sitting LD was allowed a free run against both Conservative and Labour but in Shalford and Worplesdon, the LDs and the RGV both contested the seats. In Ash, the LDs had a free run and took the seat. In Horsleys, the Greens again stood aside and Cabinet Julie Iles lost to the RGV despite the LDs also running.
The LDs fought off a strong RGV challenge in Guildford East but held Guildford North in the absence of any RGV or Green candidate.
All this tells me is the absence of any broad strategic thinking but a local hotch-potch of informal arrangements which are often the result of personalities who either get along or don't. It's also a question of areas of local strength or weakness.
Same in South Oxfordshire in the CC elections, in all 3 Green wins the LDs weren't standing, in return for the Greens not standing in LD targets.
I'm sure the Greens are delighted from the boost the LibDems have given them.
Whether that's good for the LibDems is debateable.
Naughty David, a blatant attempt to try and split the anti Tory vote and a lead that is more polemic than analysis!
The anti-Tory vote *is* split. That's why there are different parties. The chimera that there are simply pro- and anti-Tory voters is the mirage that the centre-left has been chasing for at least a quarter of a century, Coalition notwithstanding.
Besides, I'm not a Tory any more and have no partisan interest in their success. I voted Yorkshire Party in the W Yorks mayoral and spoiled my ballot (for the first time, by writing a limerick on it) for the council election.
Why so disaffected with the Wakefield Conservatives ?
I can understand you so being with Boris and his gang but why at local level as well ?
Mostly run like a private club in the interests of already-elected councillors.
But I wouldn't differentiate between the two. I didn't feel I could reasonably stay within the party at large if I couldn't recommend to people to vote for it at the election which was clearly coming - and indeed, didn't know how I'd vote myself at that time.
To my surprise my parents (who are so loyally Conservative they make @HYUFD look like a floating voter) went independent at the local elections. I nearly fell off my chair when they told me one of the independents was ex-Labour.
The reason: the Conservative was planning to bring in car parking charges in the village centre, where they do most of their shopping, and he was also extremely pompous.
No-one can take any of their voters for granted, IMHO. As soon as you do you lose them.
Naughty David, a blatant attempt to try and split the anti Tory vote and a lead that is more polemic than analysis!
The anti-Tory vote *is* split. That's why there are different parties. The chimera that there are simply pro- and anti-Tory voters is the mirage that the centre-left has been chasing for at least a quarter of a century, Coalition notwithstanding.
Besides, I'm not a Tory any more and have no partisan interest in their success. I voted Yorkshire Party in the W Yorks mayoral and spoiled my ballot (for the first time, by writing a limerick on it) for the council election.
Why so disaffected with the Wakefield Conservatives ?
I can understand you so being with Boris and his gang but why at local level as well ?
Mostly run like a private club in the interests of already-elected councillors.
But I wouldn't differentiate between the two. I didn't feel I could reasonably stay within the party at large if I couldn't recommend to people to vote for it at the election which was clearly coming - and indeed, didn't know how I'd vote myself at that time.
To my surprise my parents (who are so loyally Conservative they make @HYUFD look like a floating voter) went independent at the local elections. I nearly fell off my chair when they told me one of the independents was ex-Labour.
The reason: the Conservative was planning to bring in car parking charges in the village centre, where they do most of their shopping, and he was also extremely pompous.
No-one can take any of their voters for granted, IMHO. As soon as you do you lose them.
You can take them for granted for quite awhile, but when it hits it hits hard.
The article suggests that she has concluded that the holiday was worth more than what was declared. Her basis for doing so is a daily rate. But 10 days may well achieve a discount. If she has evidence that the true cost was higher she should produce it. Given the somewhat opaque methods and unwillingness to cooperate by the company managing the villas I very much doubt that she has this.
She has also concluded that Mr Ross did not pay for this. Mr Ross denied paying for it originally but now says that he did. Again, what is her evidence or her basis for rejecting what Mr Ross is now saying? The answer seems to be that it wasn't in fact his villa but that has been answered.
I have no doubt that Boris has been unhelpful and uncooperative here but unless she has more material than has been made public to date it seems to me that at most she has some questions rather than assertions.
Boris can always say that "At the price she is suggesting it should have cost, I wouldn't have taken it. Not remotely worth the grief."
If a suite at the Ritz was unoccupied at 10 pm and was offered for £200 instead of £1,000, just get some income rather than zero, it is not right that the "value" should be declared as £1,000.
Or Johnson and eBay Melania could pay for their own holidays to avoid months of obfuscation and suspicion. That's always an option.
Perhaps Boris needs to work on his "dwindled and haggard" look, after dealing with Covid? Then he'd get freebies....
"Cliff Richard lent his house in Barbados to Tony Blair and his family after he saw the prime minister looking "dwindled and haggard" during the war in Iraq, the singer reveals in the Guardian today."
Most of us pay for our own holidays, don't we? Those of us on the left disapproved of Blair benefiting from freebies just as much as we disapprove of Boris benefiting from freebies, so I don't see your point. It doesn't really matter whether it's £15k or £30K; it's a free luxury holiday that red wall voters can only dream of.
Taking a free holiday is a low scale offence if one at all. Not saying who paid for it is the big offence. We know foreign powers are corrupting officials worldwide, it is a national security threat for our PM to be so opaque about who pays him.
David's semi-retirement is a real loss for us. I know that a regular commitment can feel like a trudge, but I hope you'll contribute frequently when you feel like it, David.
But lack of central direction is a core cultural value for many Greens (which incidentally gives them a point of dialogue with libertarians in other parties). It'll come down to what Greens in C&A want.
The last sentence interests me.
So why are they so obsessive about big gallumphing interventions by Government, rather than more locally-based, flexible, and efficient, answers, driven by regulated markets?
An example: I look at doing External Wall Insulation every so often, and I have yet to find a house where it is cost effective or energy effective, once all the normal easy things have been done.
The last time I looked there was a grant of 4-6k available on a 14k project to do it. Yet when I spoke to the company actually doing the work they would have done it for 9k as a private customer. So the entire Govt funding would be absorbed by oiling the administrative wheels. That is so often how 5-year-plan type programmes fail.
Compare with the gradual ramp up on energy efficiency for rentals, which works well.
I've always framed it that Greens are socialist before they are green, which imo wrecks everything (you will not agree!).
Another example may be the fuss when solar panel FIT subsidies were reduced, and were acting as a Government cash-cow for property companies. To this day were I to invest in a house with the early FIT arrangaments it is worth up to an extra 1% or so on the rental return in most places. Greens demanded their continuance.
EDIT - Yours truly has a couple commemorative Liberty Bells (and Independence Hall) on is a big porcelain decanter that used to hold a horse quart of 12-year old, 90 proof "Liberty Bell" Kentucky Bourbon, bottled in Schaefferstown, Penna
I'm not inclined to be sympathetic to the people fussing about the new Planning Permission now. A Nimbyism of sorts.
The closure in 2017 was announced at least 6 months in advance, yet they all decided to sit on their hands when something could have been done - even as simple as taking a minority stake in a business which has changed hand several times.
The article suggests that she has concluded that the holiday was worth more than what was declared. Her basis for doing so is a daily rate. But 10 days may well achieve a discount. If she has evidence that the true cost was higher she should produce it. Given the somewhat opaque methods and unwillingness to cooperate by the company managing the villas I very much doubt that she has this.
She has also concluded that Mr Ross did not pay for this. Mr Ross denied paying for it originally but now says that he did. Again, what is her evidence or her basis for rejecting what Mr Ross is now saying? The answer seems to be that it wasn't in fact his villa but that has been answered.
I have no doubt that Boris has been unhelpful and uncooperative here but unless she has more material than has been made public to date it seems to me that at most she has some questions rather than assertions.
Boris can always say that "At the price she is suggesting it should have cost, I wouldn't have taken it. Not remotely worth the grief."
If a suite at the Ritz was unoccupied at 10 pm and was offered for £200 instead of £1,000, just get some income rather than zero, it is not right that the "value" should be declared as £1,000.
Or Johnson and eBay Melania could pay for their own holidays to avoid months of obfuscation and suspicion. That's always an option.
Perhaps Boris needs to work on his "dwindled and haggard" look, after dealing with Covid? Then he'd get freebies....
"Cliff Richard lent his house in Barbados to Tony Blair and his family after he saw the prime minister looking "dwindled and haggard" during the war in Iraq, the singer reveals in the Guardian today."
Most of us pay for our own holidays, don't we? Those of us on the left disapproved of Blair benefiting from freebies just as much as we disapprove of Boris benefiting from freebies, so I don't see your point. It doesn't really matter whether it's £15k or £30K; it's a free luxury holiday that red wall voters can only dream of.
I've stayed at good friends' places abroad for free or knockdown prices. I don't think it's all that unusual. And I think a lot of those red wall voters could easily imagine themselves accepting a freebie if they had the chance!
I didn't say it was that unusual. And of course most of us would accept freebies. But I rather suspect that it's only the already wealthy who would be offered a freebie worth £15/30K.
I'd be a bit embarrassed if our PM had accepted a 10 day freebie holiday worth what an average voter would pay.
Agree with everyone else; thanks Mr H for the thoughtful contributions over the years. I always wonder whether politics, and indeed life, is like tides. Which are, after all, very basic features of life on Earth. And while tides come in and out inexorably, they don't do so without a certain amount of to and fro. Although a few years ago the Greens made a massive advance and then fell back, they didn't fall back quite as far. So I think they'll fall back from this, but again not quite as far, and the next time they advance they'll do so to a higher point. Of, course, as well, 'there is a ride in the affairs of men, which, taken on the flood, leads on to fortune."
As a one time Lib activist and sometime LD party member and voter, I wonder whether the mess-up over the Coalition won't prove fatal. Once tides start to go out, they can't be stopped.
Tides do, of course, stop in time but yes, I don't think many Lib Dems realise quite how existential the crisis facing their party is. So many still seem to believe in the magic power of the isolated by-election, as here.
It's no longer enough to just be 'not the other two': there are other options available for that, and each with a much stronger identity and set of principles. Fuzzy localism is fine of itself but - as in 2010 - is a strategic dead-end because it all falls apart when the weak tactical votes face are confronted with the realities of power.
There is a very real chance that the Greens could supplant them, though that involves a considerable amount of agency on the part of both parties and, as I mentioned in the header, I'm far from convinced that the Greens have the mindset to capitalise on the opportunity.
Well, they got me voting for them last week because they tried Liberalism.
There's an obvious space for them in an age of state control, ever greater impingments on personal privacy, restricted choice, caveated freedoms and attitudes to identity so extreme they become illiberal - but I don't see them taking it.
It's not even that hard to get started. All it takes is for Ed Davey to say to the media he's going to give a powerful speech on what it means to be liberal and the future of liberalism, very well trailed, and then give a very good speech which is well briefed out afterwards.
That'd be a start.
I would be very tempted to vote for the LDs as a traditionally liberal party except the two worst people I ever met who were politicians were LDs. I met good and bad people from many other parties but those two stood out for me as nasty and deceitful scumbags.
There is that. Quite a few are a bit "dickish" as well.
The article suggests that she has concluded that the holiday was worth more than what was declared. Her basis for doing so is a daily rate. But 10 days may well achieve a discount. If she has evidence that the true cost was higher she should produce it. Given the somewhat opaque methods and unwillingness to cooperate by the company managing the villas I very much doubt that she has this.
She has also concluded that Mr Ross did not pay for this. Mr Ross denied paying for it originally but now says that he did. Again, what is her evidence or her basis for rejecting what Mr Ross is now saying? The answer seems to be that it wasn't in fact his villa but that has been answered.
I have no doubt that Boris has been unhelpful and uncooperative here but unless she has more material than has been made public to date it seems to me that at most she has some questions rather than assertions.
Boris can always say that "At the price she is suggesting it should have cost, I wouldn't have taken it. Not remotely worth the grief."
If a suite at the Ritz was unoccupied at 10 pm and was offered for £200 instead of £1,000, just get some income rather than zero, it is not right that the "value" should be declared as £1,000.
Or Johnson and eBay Melania could pay for their own holidays to avoid months of obfuscation and suspicion. That's always an option.
Perhaps Boris needs to work on his "dwindled and haggard" look, after dealing with Covid? Then he'd get freebies....
"Cliff Richard lent his house in Barbados to Tony Blair and his family after he saw the prime minister looking "dwindled and haggard" during the war in Iraq, the singer reveals in the Guardian today."
Most of us pay for our own holidays, don't we? Those of us on the left disapproved of Blair benefiting from freebies just as much as we disapprove of Boris benefiting from freebies, so I don't see your point. It doesn't really matter whether it's £15k or £30K; it's a free luxury holiday that red wall voters can only dream of.
Taking a free holiday is a low scale offence if one at all. Not saying who paid for it is the big offence. We know foreign powers are corrupting officials worldwide, it is a national security threat for our PM to be so opaque about who pays him.
Boris's troubles arise from his slack attitude to doing things properly rather than the things he does.
The article suggests that she has concluded that the holiday was worth more than what was declared. Her basis for doing so is a daily rate. But 10 days may well achieve a discount. If she has evidence that the true cost was higher she should produce it. Given the somewhat opaque methods and unwillingness to cooperate by the company managing the villas I very much doubt that she has this.
She has also concluded that Mr Ross did not pay for this. Mr Ross denied paying for it originally but now says that he did. Again, what is her evidence or her basis for rejecting what Mr Ross is now saying? The answer seems to be that it wasn't in fact his villa but that has been answered.
I have no doubt that Boris has been unhelpful and uncooperative here but unless she has more material than has been made public to date it seems to me that at most she has some questions rather than assertions.
Boris can always say that "At the price she is suggesting it should have cost, I wouldn't have taken it. Not remotely worth the grief."
If a suite at the Ritz was unoccupied at 10 pm and was offered for £200 instead of £1,000, just get some income rather than zero, it is not right that the "value" should be declared as £1,000.
Or Johnson and eBay Melania could pay for their own holidays to avoid months of obfuscation and suspicion. That's always an option.
Perhaps Boris needs to work on his "dwindled and haggard" look, after dealing with Covid? Then he'd get freebies....
"Cliff Richard lent his house in Barbados to Tony Blair and his family after he saw the prime minister looking "dwindled and haggard" during the war in Iraq, the singer reveals in the Guardian today."
Most of us pay for our own holidays, don't we? Those of us on the left disapproved of Blair benefiting from freebies just as much as we disapprove of Boris benefiting from freebies, so I don't see your point. It doesn't really matter whether it's £15k or £30K; it's a free luxury holiday that red wall voters can only dream of.
Taking a free holiday is a low scale offence if one at all. Not saying who paid for it is the big offence. We know foreign powers are corrupting officials worldwide, it is a national security threat for our PM to be so opaque about who pays him.
Boris's troubles arise from his slack attitude to doing things properly rather than the things he does.
Julia Hartley-Brewer @JuliaHB1 · 30m So excuse me if I take SAGE predictions of doom and gloom every time we open up with a large pinch of salt. Their computer models have been wrong every single time. 5/
Naughty David, a blatant attempt to try and split the anti Tory vote and a lead that is more polemic than analysis!
The anti-Tory vote *is* split. That's why there are different parties. The chimera that there are simply pro- and anti-Tory voters is the mirage that the centre-left has been chasing for at least a quarter of a century, Coalition notwithstanding.
Besides, I'm not a Tory any more and have no partisan interest in their success. I voted Yorkshire Party in the W Yorks mayoral and spoiled my ballot (for the first time, by writing a limerick on it) for the council election.
The Tory vote has been split, but with a different discipline. The party which embraces Ken Clarke and Steve Baker wins elections. Those who leave the party, as Heseltine and Clarke, as well as Baker and Francois well know have nowhere to go so they stay. The centre left should have learned from the election of 1983, which they won by a mile while losing by a mile, that it doesn't work.
And BTW if the Labour party had the same discipline about the revolutionary/anti semitic left that Tories do about the racist and fascist right it would be much easier for the centre left to coalesce.
Tories marginalise, expel and adapt to destroy them. For too long Labour has believed that methodism and Lenin belong in the same party.
This won't left on the left, unfortunately. It's the purgative siren call of both the Corbynites and the Blairites, and will only result in an acrimonious split that will destroy the chances of a PR coalition. The Labour left and Lib Dems are much deeper-rooted than UKIP and the Reform Party , and the Greens are beginning to become so. The alternatives on the left are well-established and grounded in pre-war traditions ; on the right we've only had a series of vehicles for Nigel Farage, and the now almost invisible neo-Nazis.
Naughty David, a blatant attempt to try and split the anti Tory vote and a lead that is more polemic than analysis!
The anti-Tory vote *is* split. That's why there are different parties. The chimera that there are simply pro- and anti-Tory voters is the mirage that the centre-left has been chasing for at least a quarter of a century, Coalition notwithstanding.
Besides, I'm not a Tory any more and have no partisan interest in their success. I voted Yorkshire Party in the W Yorks mayoral and spoiled my ballot (for the first time, by writing a limerick on it) for the council election.
Why so disaffected with the Wakefield Conservatives ?
I can understand you so being with Boris and his gang but why at local level as well ?
Mostly run like a private club in the interests of already-elected councillors.
But I wouldn't differentiate between the two. I didn't feel I could reasonably stay within the party at large if I couldn't recommend to people to vote for it at the election which was clearly coming - and indeed, didn't know how I'd vote myself at that time.
Do local parties have a tendency to become like private clubs where they have never been in power ?
The article suggests that she has concluded that the holiday was worth more than what was declared. Her basis for doing so is a daily rate. But 10 days may well achieve a discount. If she has evidence that the true cost was higher she should produce it. Given the somewhat opaque methods and unwillingness to cooperate by the company managing the villas I very much doubt that she has this.
She has also concluded that Mr Ross did not pay for this. Mr Ross denied paying for it originally but now says that he did. Again, what is her evidence or her basis for rejecting what Mr Ross is now saying? The answer seems to be that it wasn't in fact his villa but that has been answered.
I have no doubt that Boris has been unhelpful and uncooperative here but unless she has more material than has been made public to date it seems to me that at most she has some questions rather than assertions.
Boris can always say that "At the price she is suggesting it should have cost, I wouldn't have taken it. Not remotely worth the grief."
If a suite at the Ritz was unoccupied at 10 pm and was offered for £200 instead of £1,000, just get some income rather than zero, it is not right that the "value" should be declared as £1,000.
Or Johnson and eBay Melania could pay for their own holidays to avoid months of obfuscation and suspicion. That's always an option.
Perhaps Boris needs to work on his "dwindled and haggard" look, after dealing with Covid? Then he'd get freebies....
"Cliff Richard lent his house in Barbados to Tony Blair and his family after he saw the prime minister looking "dwindled and haggard" during the war in Iraq, the singer reveals in the Guardian today."
Most of us pay for our own holidays, don't we? Those of us on the left disapproved of Blair benefiting from freebies just as much as we disapprove of Boris benefiting from freebies, so I don't see your point. It doesn't really matter whether it's £15k or £30K; it's a free luxury holiday that red wall voters can only dream of.
I've stayed at good friends' places abroad for free or knockdown prices. I don't think it's all that unusual. And I think a lot of those red wall voters could easily imagine themselves accepting a freebie if they had the chance!
I didn't say it was that unusual. And of course most of us would accept freebies. But I rather suspect that it's only the already wealthy who would be offered a freebie worth £15/30K.
I'd be a bit embarrassed if our PM had accepted a 10 day freebie holiday worth what an average voter would pay.
Indeed. Like other things about our PM it's what he's hiding that's the problem.
Thank you David for the high quality of your Saturday posts. Better than the Comment columns of the dead tree press. I hope you will contribute frequently.
I am reasonably confident that B.1.617.2 has the same intrinsic transmissibility as B.1.1.7 but am far from certain it has a higher one. This was also (roughly) the conclusion in the PHE Technical Briefing #10 to which I contributed my opinions.
In the days of Grimond, Thorpe and Steel the Liberal Party had fewer seats than today's LD's, BUT was the third party in Parliament and therefore the Leader was routinely called after the PM and LOTO. Now the SNP is No 3, so Blackford is called, and gets, among other things TV time. If,...... yes I know it's a very big IF ....... after the next election we were in a similar situation to 2005, then the LD's would be bigger than the SNP and Davey would be on TV every Wednesday at least.
The article suggests that she has concluded that the holiday was worth more than what was declared. Her basis for doing so is a daily rate. But 10 days may well achieve a discount. If she has evidence that the true cost was higher she should produce it. Given the somewhat opaque methods and unwillingness to cooperate by the company managing the villas I very much doubt that she has this.
She has also concluded that Mr Ross did not pay for this. Mr Ross denied paying for it originally but now says that he did. Again, what is her evidence or her basis for rejecting what Mr Ross is now saying? The answer seems to be that it wasn't in fact his villa but that has been answered.
I have no doubt that Boris has been unhelpful and uncooperative here but unless she has more material than has been made public to date it seems to me that at most she has some questions rather than assertions.
Boris can always say that "At the price she is suggesting it should have cost, I wouldn't have taken it. Not remotely worth the grief."
If a suite at the Ritz was unoccupied at 10 pm and was offered for £200 instead of £1,000, just get some income rather than zero, it is not right that the "value" should be declared as £1,000.
Or Johnson and eBay Melania could pay for their own holidays to avoid months of obfuscation and suspicion. That's always an option.
Perhaps Boris needs to work on his "dwindled and haggard" look, after dealing with Covid? Then he'd get freebies....
"Cliff Richard lent his house in Barbados to Tony Blair and his family after he saw the prime minister looking "dwindled and haggard" during the war in Iraq, the singer reveals in the Guardian today."
Most of us pay for our own holidays, don't we? Those of us on the left disapproved of Blair benefiting from freebies just as much as we disapprove of Boris benefiting from freebies, so I don't see your point. It doesn't really matter whether it's £15k or £30K; it's a free luxury holiday that red wall voters can only dream of.
Taking a free holiday is a low scale offence if one at all. Not saying who paid for it is the big offence. We know foreign powers are corrupting officials worldwide, it is a national security threat for our PM to be so opaque about who pays him.
Boris's troubles arise from his slack attitude to doing things properly rather than the things he does.
What he needs is some sort of office manager.
Paragraph 1, well that's alright then.
And I suspect there are two former wives, a former Sun photographer and several former mistresses who might disagree.
Paragraph 2, he had a bag carrier, Dominic Cummings.
Much of that is good stuff. His criticism of Netanyahu is bang on, for starters. And Palestinian lives do matter, although sadly not to Hamas.
However, I am not sure I agree with his claim that ‘nobody is saying’ Israel has no right to exist. Far too many on the left are saying just that, referring to it as a colonial era relic that needs to be removed. And Hamas undoubtedly says it. Hell, it’s in their bloody constitution FFS!
And that is the nub of the problem. As long as Israel feels it is threatened, it will always grossly overreact to any threat - even threats it has created itself. And the Netanyahu government has built on the work of previous governments of Israel to inculcate that siege mentality and ensure it is widespread. At the bottom of the mind of every Israeli is, ‘if we don’t stand up for ourselves, there might be another Holocaust.’
And unfortunately, they’re both right, and taking the very actions that make it more likely.
On topic it seems to me that the Lib Dems are dying. Their poor performance in the Scottish Parliamentary elections included the painful reality that they did not get a single list seat being entirely dependent on a few constituencies which are in turn fairly dependent upon personal votes. Their performance in Airdrie and Shotts was as derisory as their performance in Hartlepool.
Politics may a ruthless and competitive business as David says but it is not as if the main parties are pulling up trees or squeezing the daylight out of them either. There should be plenty remainer Tories who are pissed off with the direction of the party (they can't surely all just be on PB) and disillusionment with Labour remains widespread. If the Lib Dems are not going to thrive in such an environment when can they?
So there is a clear vacancy for the NOTA party at present and it does appear that the Greens are up for the application. It seems all too likely that their sister party will be in government in Germany soon as well which will give them a boost in credibility as the lights don't go off and industry continues to thrive. I can see them becoming a significant third force in this country over the coming decade.
I have asked on here a few times this year what is the point of the LibDems in the 2020s and yet to receive a convincing answer. The forces of liberalism and centrist politics are probably better served as factions within the two big parties than as an independent party, at national level at least. Labour currently have a policy void to fill, and who knows what the Tories will become when "Boris" leaves the scene, they yo-yo from an ideology to the next, remarkably maintaining many loyal cheerleaders throughout.
Electorally over the long term the answer is that they give dissatisfied Tories who would never vote Labour, someone to vote for. The missing element right now is large numbers of dissatisfied Tories. As and when that changes, the answers to the questions being raised about Labour, the LibDems and the Greens might look different.
There are lots of dissatisfied CP voters but unfortunately the image of late from LibDems (who I vote for ... just) seem to have become unhinged from liberalism. I thought this might change with Davey who is an Orange Booker. Still hoping.
The LIbDems need to start attacking the LP as much as they do the CP and importantly need to make clear that the mad-left woke are not in any way liberal.
Don't you think that Ed Davey may be part of the problem, not the solution? I'm sure he's a decent chap, but he's pretty invisible and dull and worthy rather than energising. Similar problem to Starmer, but without the high profile?
Betting tip (not that there is money in it): Cooper is next
Fair play to Jamie Vardy - today he will become the first player to play in all rounds of the FA Cup, not just the 8 proper rounds, but also the 4 qualifying rounds and the preliminary round!
Julia Hartley-Brewer @JuliaHB1 · 30m So excuse me if I take SAGE predictions of doom and gloom every time we open up with a large pinch of salt. Their computer models have been wrong every single time. 5/
She is certainly correct that they were massively wrong about schools reopening. That proved to be one of the worst predictions of the pandemic.
People barely notice if they're too gloomy. Whereas if they're too optimistic, you can bet that for the next thirty years, their names will be even better known than Michael Fish's.
Also, the moment restrictions are gone, all their influence is too.
Julia Hartley-Brewer @JuliaHB1 · 30m So excuse me if I take SAGE predictions of doom and gloom every time we open up with a large pinch of salt. Their computer models have been wrong every single time. 5/
She is certainly correct that they were massively wrong about schools reopening. That proved to be one of the worst predictions of the pandemic.
On the contrary, they were quite right that schools reopening would lead to a rise in infections. A very substantial one.
Where they (and I, for that matter) got it wrong was that only applied where there was a pre-existing reservoir of infections.
So it led to a rapid rise in the autumn, and in March the pattern was different (because closing schools and unis at last had brought it under control again very rapidly - as indeed it did in March and April - and vaccines prevented it from spreading).
The tragedy therefore was the lack of thought given to extending the breaks in the school year so that natural breaks of 3-4 weeks could be built into the school year and we could have avoided 23% of children being off repeatedly and the huge surge in deaths in December.
And therefore, vaccines should also mean this September will follow a different pattern.
Julia Hartley-Brewer @JuliaHB1 · 30m So excuse me if I take SAGE predictions of doom and gloom every time we open up with a large pinch of salt. Their computer models have been wrong every single time. 5/
She is certainly correct that they were massively wrong about schools reopening. That proved to be one of the worst predictions of the pandemic.
Boris took a hit early on when people tried to claim he was too slow into first lockdown. But SAGE fed him duff stats about how quickly it was replicating, and how wide it was in the community. The enquiry is going to hammer SAGE for that and help Boris off the hook.
On topic it seems to me that the Lib Dems are dying. Their poor performance in the Scottish Parliamentary elections included the painful reality that they did not get a single list seat being entirely dependent on a few constituencies which are in turn fairly dependent upon personal votes. Their performance in Airdrie and Shotts was as derisory as their performance in Hartlepool.
Politics may a ruthless and competitive business as David says but it is not as if the main parties are pulling up trees or squeezing the daylight out of them either. There should be plenty remainer Tories who are pissed off with the direction of the party (they can't surely all just be on PB) and disillusionment with Labour remains widespread. If the Lib Dems are not going to thrive in such an environment when can they?
So there is a clear vacancy for the NOTA party at present and it does appear that the Greens are up for the application. It seems all too likely that their sister party will be in government in Germany soon as well which will give them a boost in credibility as the lights don't go off and industry continues to thrive. I can see them becoming a significant third force in this country over the coming decade.
I have asked on here a few times this year what is the point of the LibDems in the 2020s and yet to receive a convincing answer. The forces of liberalism and centrist politics are probably better served as factions within the two big parties than as an independent party, at national level at least. Labour currently have a policy void to fill, and who knows what the Tories will become when "Boris" leaves the scene, they yo-yo from an ideology to the next, remarkably maintaining many loyal cheerleaders throughout.
Electorally over the long term the answer is that they give dissatisfied Tories who would never vote Labour, someone to vote for. The missing element right now is large numbers of dissatisfied Tories. As and when that changes, the answers to the questions being raised about Labour, the LibDems and the Greens might look different.
There are lots of dissatisfied CP voters but unfortunately the image of late from LibDems (who I vote for ... just) seem to have become unhinged from liberalism. I thought this might change with Davey who is an Orange Booker. Still hoping.
The LIbDems need to start attacking the LP as much as they do the CP and importantly need to make clear that the mad-left woke are not in any way liberal.
Don't you think that Ed Davey may be part of the problem, not the solution? I'm sure he's a decent chap, but he's pretty invisible and dull and worthy rather than energising. Similar problem to Starmer, but without the high profile?
Betting tip (not that there is money in it): Cooper is next
Certainly more photogenic! Looks, from her CV, like a good campaigner, too.
Naughty David, a blatant attempt to try and split the anti Tory vote and a lead that is more polemic than analysis!
The anti-Tory vote *is* split. That's why there are different parties. The chimera that there are simply pro- and anti-Tory voters is the mirage that the centre-left has been chasing for at least a quarter of a century, Coalition notwithstanding.
Besides, I'm not a Tory any more and have no partisan interest in their success. I voted Yorkshire Party in the W Yorks mayoral and spoiled my ballot (for the first time, by writing a limerick on it) for the council election.
The Tory vote has been split, but with a different discipline. The party which embraces Ken Clarke and Steve Baker wins elections. Those who leave the party, as Heseltine and Clarke, as well as Baker and Francois well know have nowhere to go so they stay. The centre left should have learned from the election of 1983, which they won by a mile while losing by a mile, that it doesn't work.
And BTW if the Labour party had the same discipline about the revolutionary/anti semitic left that Tories do about the racist and fascist right it would be much easier for the centre left to coalesce.
Tories marginalise, expel and adapt to destroy them. For too long Labour has believed that methodism and Lenin belong in the same party.
This won't left on the left, unfortunately. It's the purgative siren call of both the Corbynites and the Blairites, and will only result in an acrimonious split that will destroy the chances of a PR coalition. The Labour left and Lib Dems are much deeper-rooted than UKIP and the Reform Party , and the Greens are beginning to become so. The alternatives on the left are well-established and grounded in pre-war traditions ; on the right we've only had a series of vehicles for Nigel Farage, and the now almost invisible neo-Nazis.
The article suggests that she has concluded that the holiday was worth more than what was declared. Her basis for doing so is a daily rate. But 10 days may well achieve a discount. If she has evidence that the true cost was higher she should produce it. Given the somewhat opaque methods and unwillingness to cooperate by the company managing the villas I very much doubt that she has this.
She has also concluded that Mr Ross did not pay for this. Mr Ross denied paying for it originally but now says that he did. Again, what is her evidence or her basis for rejecting what Mr Ross is now saying? The answer seems to be that it wasn't in fact his villa but that has been answered.
I have no doubt that Boris has been unhelpful and uncooperative here but unless she has more material than has been made public to date it seems to me that at most she has some questions rather than assertions.
Boris can always say that "At the price she is suggesting it should have cost, I wouldn't have taken it. Not remotely worth the grief."
If a suite at the Ritz was unoccupied at 10 pm and was offered for £200 instead of £1,000, just get some income rather than zero, it is not right that the "value" should be declared as £1,000.
Or Johnson and eBay Melania could pay for their own holidays to avoid months of obfuscation and suspicion. That's always an option.
Perhaps Boris needs to work on his "dwindled and haggard" look, after dealing with Covid? Then he'd get freebies....
"Cliff Richard lent his house in Barbados to Tony Blair and his family after he saw the prime minister looking "dwindled and haggard" during the war in Iraq, the singer reveals in the Guardian today."
Most of us pay for our own holidays, don't we? Those of us on the left disapproved of Blair benefiting from freebies just as much as we disapprove of Boris benefiting from freebies, so I don't see your point. It doesn't really matter whether it's £15k or £30K; it's a free luxury holiday that red wall voters can only dream of.
Taking a free holiday is a low scale offence if one at all. Not saying who paid for it is the big offence. We know foreign powers are corrupting officials worldwide, it is a national security threat for our PM to be so opaque about who pays him.
Boris's troubles arise from his slack attitude to doing things properly rather than the things he does.
What he needs is some sort of office manager.
Paragraph 1, well that's alright then.
And I suspect there are two former wives, a former Sun photographer and several former mistresses who might disagree.
Paragraph 2, he had a bag carrier, Dominic Cummings.
Nobody gives a toss about who he's been shagging.
Its the unorganised finances that cause him problems.
And Cummings wasn't his bag carrier but his ideas man.
I don't know who is supposed to be the Boris bag carrier but whoever it is (assuming there is one) is a combination of incompetent and weak.
Much of that is good stuff. His criticism of Netanyahu is bang on, for starters. And Palestinian lives do matter, although sadly not to Hamas.
However, I am not sure I agree with his claim that ‘nobody is saying’ Israel has no right to exist. Far too many on the left are saying just that, referring to it as a colonial era relic that needs to be removed. And Hamas undoubtedly says it. Hell, it’s in their bloody constitution FFS!
And that is the nub of the problem. As long as Israel feels it is threatened, it will always grossly overreact to any threat - even threats it has created itself. And the Netanyahu government has built on the work of previous governments of Israel to inculcate that siege mentality and ensure it is widespread. At the bottom of the mind of every Israeli is, ‘if we don’t stand up for ourselves, there might be another Holocaust.’
And unfortunately, they’re both right, and taking the very actions that make it more likely.
There is a more cynical interpretation which is that on those rare occasions when peace does seem closer, hardliners on one side will kick off to cause a reaction from the hardliners on the other side. This time, Netanyahu looked like he might lose power to an unlikely alliance of Arabs and Jewish religious parties. That's off the table now.
Just want to pipe up my thanks for another excellent header from Mr Herdson. I for one will miss them!
I don't know if it is mentioned downthread but the historic disadvantage of the Greens ("single issue") becomes an advantage when a) that issue resonates and b) all the other parties are triangulating wildly around a messy focus-grouped purposelessness.
Much of that is good stuff. His criticism of Netanyahu is bang on, for starters. And Palestinian lives do matter, although sadly not to Hamas.
However, I am not sure I agree with his claim that ‘nobody is saying’ Israel has no right to exist. Far too many on the left are saying just that, referring to it as a colonial era relic that needs to be removed. And Hamas undoubtedly says it. Hell, it’s in their bloody constitution FFS!
And that is the nub of the problem. As long as Israel feels it is threatened, it will always grossly overreact to any threat - even threats it has created itself. And the Netanyahu government has built on the work of previous governments of Israel to inculcate that siege mentality and ensure it is widespread. At the bottom of the mind of every Israeli is, ‘if we don’t stand up for ourselves, there might be another Holocaust.’
And unfortunately, they’re both right, and taking the very actions that make it more likely.
There is a more cynical interpretation which is that on those rare occasions when peace does seem closer, hardliners on one side will kick off to cause a reaction from the hardliners on the other side. This time, Netanyahu looked like he might lose power to an unlikely alliance of Arabs and Jewish religious parties. That's off the table now.
Cynic - what an idealist calls a realist.
Although again, the article mentions that. The actions against settlers are clearly red meat to Netanyahu’s right wing, just at the moment he’s facing both severe political and legal challenges.
He is a fool, and a selfish, self-indulgent and dangerous fool. But then, he always was.
Perhaps Boris needs to work on his "dwindled and haggard" look, after dealing with Covid? Then he'd get freebies....
"Cliff Richard lent his house in Barbados to Tony Blair and his family after he saw the prime minister looking "dwindled and haggard" during the war in Iraq, the singer reveals in the Guardian today."
Much of that is good stuff. His criticism of Netanyahu is bang on, for starters. And Palestinian lives do matter, although sadly not to Hamas.
However, I am not sure I agree with his claim that ‘nobody is saying’ Israel has no right to exist. Far too many on the left are saying just that, referring to it as a colonial era relic that needs to be removed. And Hamas undoubtedly says it. Hell, it’s in their bloody constitution FFS!
And that is the nub of the problem. As long as Israel feels it is threatened, it will always grossly overreact to any threat - even threats it has created itself. And the Netanyahu government has built on the work of previous governments of Israel to inculcate that siege mentality and ensure it is widespread. At the bottom of the mind of every Israeli is, ‘if we don’t stand up for ourselves, there might be another Holocaust.’
And unfortunately, they’re both right, and taking the very actions that make it more likely.
There is a more cynical interpretation which is that on those rare occasions when peace does seem closer, hardliners on one side will kick off to cause a reaction from the hardliners on the other side. This time, Netanyahu looked like he might lose power to an unlikely alliance of Arabs and Jewish religious parties. That's off the table now.
Cynic - what an idealist calls a realist.
Although again, the article mentions that. The actions against settlers are clearly red meat to Netanyahu’s right wing, just at the moment he’s facing both severe political and legal challenges.
He is a fool, and a selfish, self-indulgent and dangerous fool. But then, he always was.
There are one or two other national leaders about like that.
Much of that is good stuff. His criticism of Netanyahu is bang on, for starters. And Palestinian lives do matter, although sadly not to Hamas.
However, I am not sure I agree with his claim that ‘nobody is saying’ Israel has no right to exist. Far too many on the left are saying just that, referring to it as a colonial era relic that needs to be removed. And Hamas undoubtedly says it. Hell, it’s in their bloody constitution FFS!
And that is the nub of the problem. As long as Israel feels it is threatened, it will always grossly overreact to any threat - even threats it has created itself. And the Netanyahu government has built on the work of previous governments of Israel to inculcate that siege mentality and ensure it is widespread. At the bottom of the mind of every Israeli is, ‘if we don’t stand up for ourselves, there might be another Holocaust.’
And unfortunately, they’re both right, and taking the very actions that make it more likely.
There is a more cynical interpretation which is that on those rare occasions when peace does seem closer, hardliners on one side will kick off to cause a reaction from the hardliners on the other side. This time, Netanyahu looked like he might lose power to an unlikely alliance of Arabs and Jewish religious parties. That's off the table now.
Cynic - what an idealist calls a realist.
Although again, the article mentions that. The actions against settlers are clearly red meat to Netanyahu’s right wing, just at the moment he’s facing both severe political and legal challenges.
He is a fool, and a selfish, self-indulgent and dangerous fool. But then, he always was.
There are one or two other national leaders about like that.
The article suggests that she has concluded that the holiday was worth more than what was declared. Her basis for doing so is a daily rate. But 10 days may well achieve a discount. If she has evidence that the true cost was higher she should produce it. Given the somewhat opaque methods and unwillingness to cooperate by the company managing the villas I very much doubt that she has this.
She has also concluded that Mr Ross did not pay for this. Mr Ross denied paying for it originally but now says that he did. Again, what is her evidence or her basis for rejecting what Mr Ross is now saying? The answer seems to be that it wasn't in fact his villa but that has been answered.
I have no doubt that Boris has been unhelpful and uncooperative here but unless she has more material than has been made public to date it seems to me that at most she has some questions rather than assertions.
Boris can always say that "At the price she is suggesting it should have cost, I wouldn't have taken it. Not remotely worth the grief."
If a suite at the Ritz was unoccupied at 10 pm and was offered for £200 instead of £1,000, just get some income rather than zero, it is not right that the "value" should be declared as £1,000.
Or Johnson and eBay Melania could pay for their own holidays to avoid months of obfuscation and suspicion. That's always an option.
Perhaps Boris needs to work on his "dwindled and haggard" look, after dealing with Covid? Then he'd get freebies....
"Cliff Richard lent his house in Barbados to Tony Blair and his family after he saw the prime minister looking "dwindled and haggard" during the war in Iraq, the singer reveals in the Guardian today."
Most of us pay for our own holidays, don't we? Those of us on the left disapproved of Blair benefiting from freebies just as much as we disapprove of Boris benefiting from freebies, so I don't see your point. It doesn't really matter whether it's £15k or £30K; it's a free luxury holiday that red wall voters can only dream of.
Taking a free holiday is a low scale offence if one at all. Not saying who paid for it is the big offence. We know foreign powers are corrupting officials worldwide, it is a national security threat for our PM to be so opaque about who pays him.
Boris's troubles arise from his slack attitude to doing things properly rather than the things he does.
What he needs is some sort of office manager.
Also some routine - eg regular mealtimes - with built in periods for 'me time' to decompress from the stresses and strains of the job.
Much of that is good stuff. His criticism of Netanyahu is bang on, for starters. And Palestinian lives do matter, although sadly not to Hamas.
However, I am not sure I agree with his claim that ‘nobody is saying’ Israel has no right to exist. Far too many on the left are saying just that, referring to it as a colonial era relic that needs to be removed. And Hamas undoubtedly says it. Hell, it’s in their bloody constitution FFS!
And that is the nub of the problem. As long as Israel feels it is threatened, it will always grossly overreact to any threat - even threats it has created itself. And the Netanyahu government has built on the work of previous governments of Israel to inculcate that siege mentality and ensure it is widespread. At the bottom of the mind of every Israeli is, ‘if we don’t stand up for ourselves, there might be another Holocaust.’
And unfortunately, they’re both right, and taking the very actions that make it more likely.
There is a more cynical interpretation which is that on those rare occasions when peace does seem closer, hardliners on one side will kick off to cause a reaction from the hardliners on the other side. This time, Netanyahu looked like he might lose power to an unlikely alliance of Arabs and Jewish religious parties. That's off the table now.
Cynic - what an idealist calls a realist.
Although again, the article mentions that. The actions against settlers are clearly red meat to Netanyahu’s right wing, just at the moment he’s facing both severe political and legal challenges.
He is a fool, and a selfish, self-indulgent and dangerous fool. But then, he always was.
There are one or two other national leaders about like that.
That’s an optimistic comment.
I would have said that it was about 50 myself.
You'd think I'd know better by now, but I'm ever the optimist!
And TBH, I don't think ALL the other 50 are quite in the same league.
The article suggests that she has concluded that the holiday was worth more than what was declared. Her basis for doing so is a daily rate. But 10 days may well achieve a discount. If she has evidence that the true cost was higher she should produce it. Given the somewhat opaque methods and unwillingness to cooperate by the company managing the villas I very much doubt that she has this.
She has also concluded that Mr Ross did not pay for this. Mr Ross denied paying for it originally but now says that he did. Again, what is her evidence or her basis for rejecting what Mr Ross is now saying? The answer seems to be that it wasn't in fact his villa but that has been answered.
I have no doubt that Boris has been unhelpful and uncooperative here but unless she has more material than has been made public to date it seems to me that at most she has some questions rather than assertions.
Boris can always say that "At the price she is suggesting it should have cost, I wouldn't have taken it. Not remotely worth the grief."
If a suite at the Ritz was unoccupied at 10 pm and was offered for £200 instead of £1,000, just get some income rather than zero, it is not right that the "value" should be declared as £1,000.
Or Johnson and eBay Melania could pay for their own holidays to avoid months of obfuscation and suspicion. That's always an option.
Perhaps Boris needs to work on his "dwindled and haggard" look, after dealing with Covid? Then he'd get freebies....
"Cliff Richard lent his house in Barbados to Tony Blair and his family after he saw the prime minister looking "dwindled and haggard" during the war in Iraq, the singer reveals in the Guardian today."
Most of us pay for our own holidays, don't we? Those of us on the left disapproved of Blair benefiting from freebies just as much as we disapprove of Boris benefiting from freebies, so I don't see your point. It doesn't really matter whether it's £15k or £30K; it's a free luxury holiday that red wall voters can only dream of.
Taking a free holiday is a low scale offence if one at all. Not saying who paid for it is the big offence. We know foreign powers are corrupting officials worldwide, it is a national security threat for our PM to be so opaque about who pays him.
Boris's troubles arise from his slack attitude to doing things properly rather than the things he does.
What he needs is some sort of office manager.
Also some routine - eg regular mealtimes - with built in periods for 'me time' to decompress from the stresses and strains of the job.
I'd imagined BJ's entire existence to be 'me time'.
We are just in the process of buying a house, and decided to embrace diversity by moving next door to a massive traveller site.
All the progressive feel good qualities of London at half the price of the houses 5 mins away!
You may live to regret that.
Depending on eg how new the site is, whether it is externally managed, the attitude of the people living there and so on, if the Council are awake etc.
I've been dealing with one locally for 3 or 4 years where the Council and their Planning Policies have effectively been sent packing. They lost their first attempt at enforcement, and it has been more or less downhill since.
Julia Hartley-Brewer @JuliaHB1 · 30m So excuse me if I take SAGE predictions of doom and gloom every time we open up with a large pinch of salt. Their computer models have been wrong every single time. 5/
She is certainly correct that they were massively wrong about schools reopening. That proved to be one of the worst predictions of the pandemic.
Boris took a hit early on when people tried to claim he was too slow into first lockdown. But SAGE fed him duff stats about how quickly it was replicating, and how wide it was in the community. The enquiry is going to hammer SAGE for that and help Boris off the hook.
True, it is vital we get at the heart of why all the pre pandemic planning was hopelessly wrong. But that won't help Boris with the botched autumn and winter lockdowns.
We are just in the process of buying a house, and decided to embrace diversity by moving next door to a massive traveller site.
All the progressive feel good qualities of London at half the price of the houses 5 mins away!
You may live to regret that.
Depending on eg how new the site is, whether it is externally managed, the attitude of the people living there and so on, if the Council are awake etc.
I've been dealing with one locally for 3 or 4 years where the Council and their Planning Policies have effectively been sent packing. They lost their first attempt at enforcement, and it has been more or less downhill since.
Would that be Basildon? There's a site there where problems of one sort or another flare up every couple of years.
Definitely a mild headache (As well as the dead arm) morning after post 2nd Pfizer. I know how sorry you'll all feel for me
Well, you have my sympathy at least. Was fine after the first dose, but definitely felt 'under the weather' after the second. I was OK a day or so later, though. And yes, it was Pfizer. Best wishes.
Julia Hartley-Brewer @JuliaHB1 · 30m So excuse me if I take SAGE predictions of doom and gloom every time we open up with a large pinch of salt. Their computer models have been wrong every single time. 5/
She is certainly correct that they were massively wrong about schools reopening. That proved to be one of the worst predictions of the pandemic.
They said that case numbers would rise post April 12th (they didn't). They are saying the the case numbers will rise post May 17th. Apparently the important thing was not case numbers but, with the vaccine, how they translated into hospitalisations and deaths (that's why there was five weeks between stages).
Now that they've discovered this new Indian variant it feels as if they're moving the goal posts...
We are just in the process of buying a house, and decided to embrace diversity by moving next door to a massive traveller site.
All the progressive feel good qualities of London at half the price of the houses 5 mins away!
You may live to regret that.
Depending on eg how new the site is, whether it is externally managed, the attitude of the people living there and so on, if the Council are awake etc.
I've been dealing with one locally for 3 or 4 years where the Council and their Planning Policies have effectively been sent packing. They lost their first attempt at enforcement, and it has been more or less downhill since.
Traveller communities are highly unpredictable in my experience ; you have to take each one as they come. Some I've found helpful and interesting ; others conform to tabloid stereotypes.
Many of these communities benefitted in their communication with the rest of the world from sharing spaces with the New Age traveller movement in the and late '80s and early '90s, but that was all largely ended with the Criminal Justice Act.
Definitely a mild headache (As well as the dead arm) morning after post 2nd Pfizer. I know how sorry you'll all feel for me
Well, you have my sympathy at least. Was fine after the first dose, but definitely felt 'under the weather' after the second. I was OK a day or so later, though. And yes, it was Pfizer. Best wishes.
Opposite for me with the AZ. 1st jab left me ropey for 48 hours, 2nd one nothing.
Julia Hartley-Brewer @JuliaHB1 · 30m So excuse me if I take SAGE predictions of doom and gloom every time we open up with a large pinch of salt. Their computer models have been wrong every single time. 5/
She is certainly correct that they were massively wrong about schools reopening. That proved to be one of the worst predictions of the pandemic.
On the contrary, they were quite right that schools reopening would lead to a rise in infections. A very substantial one.
Where they (and I, for that matter) got it wrong was that only applied where there was a pre-existing reservoir of infections.
So it led to a rapid rise in the autumn, and in March the pattern was different (because closing schools and unis at last had brought it under control again very rapidly - as indeed it did in March and April - and vaccines prevented it from spreading).
The tragedy therefore was the lack of thought given to extending the breaks in the school year so that natural breaks of 3-4 weeks could be built into the school year and we could have avoided 23% of children being off repeatedly and the huge surge in deaths in December.
And therefore, vaccines should also mean this September will follow a different pattern.
She’s referring to the March reopening. They were massively wrong - no doubt about that.
Julia Hartley-Brewer @JuliaHB1 · 30m So excuse me if I take SAGE predictions of doom and gloom every time we open up with a large pinch of salt. Their computer models have been wrong every single time. 5/
She is certainly correct that they were massively wrong about schools reopening. That proved to be one of the worst predictions of the pandemic.
Boris took a hit early on when people tried to claim he was too slow into first lockdown. But SAGE fed him duff stats about how quickly it was replicating, and how wide it was in the community. The enquiry is going to hammer SAGE for that and help Boris off the hook.
I think in the round Sage have a C minus at best. On lots of the big calls, they’ve been proved wrong.
The article suggests that she has concluded that the holiday was worth more than what was declared. Her basis for doing so is a daily rate. But 10 days may well achieve a discount. If she has evidence that the true cost was higher she should produce it. Given the somewhat opaque methods and unwillingness to cooperate by the company managing the villas I very much doubt that she has this.
She has also concluded that Mr Ross did not pay for this. Mr Ross denied paying for it originally but now says that he did. Again, what is her evidence or her basis for rejecting what Mr Ross is now saying? The answer seems to be that it wasn't in fact his villa but that has been answered.
I have no doubt that Boris has been unhelpful and uncooperative here but unless she has more material than has been made public to date it seems to me that at most she has some questions rather than assertions.
Boris can always say that "At the price she is suggesting it should have cost, I wouldn't have taken it. Not remotely worth the grief."
If a suite at the Ritz was unoccupied at 10 pm and was offered for £200 instead of £1,000, just get some income rather than zero, it is not right that the "value" should be declared as £1,000.
Or Johnson and eBay Melania could pay for their own holidays to avoid months of obfuscation and suspicion. That's always an option.
Perhaps Boris needs to work on his "dwindled and haggard" look, after dealing with Covid? Then he'd get freebies....
"Cliff Richard lent his house in Barbados to Tony Blair and his family after he saw the prime minister looking "dwindled and haggard" during the war in Iraq, the singer reveals in the Guardian today."
Most of us pay for our own holidays, don't we? Those of us on the left disapproved of Blair benefiting from freebies just as much as we disapprove of Boris benefiting from freebies, so I don't see your point. It doesn't really matter whether it's £15k or £30K; it's a free luxury holiday that red wall voters can only dream of.
Taking a free holiday is a low scale offence if one at all. Not saying who paid for it is the big offence. We know foreign powers are corrupting officials worldwide, it is a national security threat for our PM to be so opaque about who pays him.
Boris's troubles arise from his slack attitude to doing things properly rather than the things he does.
What he needs is some sort of office manager.
Also some routine - eg regular mealtimes - with built in periods for 'me time' to decompress from the stresses and strains of the job.
I'd imagined BJ's entire existence to be 'me time'.
Yes, sorry, typo. Meant to say some short periods built into the me-time to allow a bit of PMing every now and again.
Julia Hartley-Brewer @JuliaHB1 · 30m So excuse me if I take SAGE predictions of doom and gloom every time we open up with a large pinch of salt. Their computer models have been wrong every single time. 5/
She is certainly correct that they were massively wrong about schools reopening. That proved to be one of the worst predictions of the pandemic.
They said that case numbers would rise post April 12th (they didn't). They are saying the the case numbers will rise post May 17th. Apparently the important thing was not case numbers but, with the vaccine, how they translated into hospitalisations and deaths (that's why there was five weeks between stages).
Now that they've discovered this new Indian variant it feels as if they're moving the goal posts...
There’s absolutely goalpost shifting going on. Boris has been leant on - again.
Noticed on my morning constitutional to purchase the Racing Post (hugely expensive but my indulgence) petrol at my local Tesco's has crept up to 123.9p per litre.
I think the price has risen 15p since last year.
Oil is now in the mid-60s per dollar which is noteworthy for those who don't seem concerned about inflation. It's more than doubled in the past year since that day when the futures price went negative.
It's an indicator of growing economic activity but it's a reminder one of the definitions of inflation is too much money chasing too few goods. Whether it's holidays, indoor pub meals or anything else, the notion of £15 billion or more suddenly coming into the economy (10% of an alleged middle class cash reserve of £150 billion which we are all champing at the bit to spend apparently) isn't going to be without consequences.
I know @MaxPB is relaxed about inflation - I'm not. The return of a more normal monetary policy with rising inflation and interest rates will be a culture shock to those who've spent the last 30 years enjoying cheap food, cheap fuel, cheap money and rising asset values.
It's understandable businesses which have suffered so much in the past year need to get trading back but as the gambler learns not to chase their losses there's only so much that can be done to retrieve the losses of 2020. If you only have 50 covers, you can only fill 50 covers even if the demand is for 150 so you either open later or charge more - what else can you do if everyone wants to eat out (or in) at the same time?
If there was a way of staggering the "splurge" it would be so much more helpful but human nature being what it is, the line from the song is apposite "I want it all and I want it now".
We are just in the process of buying a house, and decided to embrace diversity by moving next door to a massive traveller site.
All the progressive feel good qualities of London at half the price of the houses 5 mins away!
Go and find the site's "King of the Gypsies", introduce yourself with a really nice gift (some top drawer booze, maybe a nice piece of Crown Derby for his missus) and you'll be sound as a pound.
We are just in the process of buying a house, and decided to embrace diversity by moving next door to a massive traveller site.
All the progressive feel good qualities of London at half the price of the houses 5 mins away!
You'll be quaffing cinnamon almond matcha lattes afore ye know it.
Shame to be moving though. There is a quaint little gathering every Sunday near us, down a road called Landers Lane next to the old A13 in Rainham - Inaccessible to motorists as crowds watch the men bare knuckle fighting all afternoon. Good for the economy it seems, as all the cars the crowd travel in seem to be brand new Range's, and the £50s are flying about like confetti betting on whose gonna get knocked out!
The locals love it! Parris should come down and watch one weekend, that'll open his blinkered mind
Noticed on my morning constitutional to purchase the Racing Post (hugely expensive but my indulgence) petrol at my local Tesco's has crept up to 123.9p per litre.
I think the price has risen 15p since last year.
Oil is now in the mid-60s per dollar which is noteworthy for those who don't seem concerned about inflation. It's more than doubled in the past year since that day when the futures price went negative.
It's an indicator of growing economic activity but it's a reminder one of the definitions of inflation is too much money chasing too few goods. Whether it's holidays, indoor pub meals or anything else, the notion of £15 billion or more suddenly coming into the economy (10% of an alleged middle class cash reserve of £150 billion which we are all champing at the bit to spend apparently) isn't going to be without consequences.
I know @MaxPB is relaxed about inflation - I'm not. The return of a more normal monetary policy with rising inflation and interest rates will be a culture shock to those who've spent the last 30 years enjoying cheap food, cheap fuel, cheap money and rising asset values.
It's understandable businesses which have suffered so much in the past year need to get trading back but as the gambler learns not to chase their losses there's only so much that can be done to retrieve the losses of 2020. If you only have 50 covers, you can only fill 50 covers even if the demand is for 150 so you either open later or charge more - what else can you do if everyone wants to eat out (or in) at the same time?
If there was a way of staggering the "splurge" it would be so much more helpful but human nature being what it is, the line from the song is apposite "I want it all and I want it now".
Interesting given oil is dollar denominated and the dollar is weakening and has been all year.
Well, they got me voting for them last week because they tried Liberalism.
There's an obvious space for them in an age of state control, ever greater impingements on personal privacy, restricted choice, caveated freedoms and attitudes to identity so extreme they become illiberal - but I don't see them taking it.
It's not even that hard to get started. All it takes is for Ed Davey to say to the media he's going to give a powerful speech on what it means to be liberal and the future of liberalism, very well trailed, and then give a very good speech which is well briefed out afterwards.
That'd be a start.
The trouble is everyone has their own definition of liberalism irrespective of whether you've read Mill, Hobbs, Locke or anyone else.
I'm no longer in the Party but the fact remains a) there are more Conservative voters than Labour ones especially in the seats the LDs seek to win and b) the current Conservative Party has moved a long way from the pro-business small-state stance it advanced in the 80s and 90s in particular.
The other "truth" is people vote Liberal or LD under two sets of circumstances - one, when both the Conservative and Labour parties look useless (Feb 74) or when things are going well Conservative voters no longer fear voting Labour or LD because they know a non-Conservative Government won't affect their wealth (1997, 2001).
Short of a substantial schism within either major party (and that's unlikely currently), the LDs have, as always, to rely on matters outside their control. Either Johnsonian populism implodes dramatically (not inconceivable down the line but not likely now) or Labour becomes a non-socialist party of the centre or centre-left for whom Conservatives can vote (or vote LD) without fear.
If I were advising Ed Davey, I'd tell him to tack back towards One Nation Conservatism mixed with solid environmental policy based not on eco-authoritarianism but on the advance of technology (it's an area he knows well) while advocating fiscal sense (and that means recognising the problems of deficit AND debt and advocating solutions to turn the former into surplus and the successful reduction and management of the latter).
It's an indicator of growing economic activity but it's a reminder one of the definitions of inflation is too much money chasing too few goods. Whether it's holidays, indoor pub meals or anything else, the notion of £15 billion or more suddenly coming into the economy (10% of an alleged middle class cash reserve of £150 billion which we are all champing at the bit to spend apparently) isn't going to be without consequences.
The retail price of bikes has gone up about 15% in the last two years for an equivalent spec.
The price of my new motorbike went from approximately £14k in March when I ordered to £15,500 when it arrived last week.
There is a lot of inflationary pressure out there...
Noticed on my morning constitutional to purchase the Racing Post (hugely expensive but my indulgence) petrol at my local Tesco's has crept up to 123.9p per litre.
I think the price has risen 15p since last year.
Oil is now in the mid-60s per dollar which is noteworthy for those who don't seem concerned about inflation. It's more than doubled in the past year since that day when the futures price went negative.
It's an indicator of growing economic activity but it's a reminder one of the definitions of inflation is too much money chasing too few goods. Whether it's holidays, indoor pub meals or anything else, the notion of £15 billion or more suddenly coming into the economy (10% of an alleged middle class cash reserve of £150 billion which we are all champing at the bit to spend apparently) isn't going to be without consequences.
I know @MaxPB is relaxed about inflation - I'm not. The return of a more normal monetary policy with rising inflation and interest rates will be a culture shock to those who've spent the last 30 years enjoying cheap food, cheap fuel, cheap money and rising asset values.
It's understandable businesses which have suffered so much in the past year need to get trading back but as the gambler learns not to chase their losses there's only so much that can be done to retrieve the losses of 2020. If you only have 50 covers, you can only fill 50 covers even if the demand is for 150 so you either open later or charge more - what else can you do if everyone wants to eat out (or in) at the same time?
If there was a way of staggering the "splurge" it would be so much more helpful but human nature being what it is, the line from the song is apposite "I want it all and I want it now".
“The last few years have been great for investors because everything went up — you gained on your equities and your bonds,” says Mohamed El-Erian, chief economic adviser at Allianz and former co-investment chief at bond group Pimco. “Now you risk losing money on both sides. It’s a horrible environment, and I’m glad I’m not managing money.”
It's an indicator of growing economic activity but it's a reminder one of the definitions of inflation is too much money chasing too few goods. Whether it's holidays, indoor pub meals or anything else, the notion of £15 billion or more suddenly coming into the economy (10% of an alleged middle class cash reserve of £150 billion which we are all champing at the bit to spend apparently) isn't going to be without consequences.
The retail price of bikes has gone up about 15% in the last two years for an equivalent spec.
The price of my new motorbike went from approximately £14k in March when I ordered to £15,500 when it arrived last week.
There is a lot of inflationary pressure out there...
We are just in the process of buying a house, and decided to embrace diversity by moving next door to a massive traveller site.
All the progressive feel good qualities of London at half the price of the houses 5 mins away!
You may live to regret that.
Depending on eg how new the site is, whether it is externally managed, the attitude of the people living there and so on, if the Council are awake etc.
I've been dealing with one locally for 3 or 4 years where the Council and their Planning Policies have effectively been sent packing. They lost their first attempt at enforcement, and it has been more or less downhill since.
Would that be Basildon? There's a site there where problems of one sort or another flare up every couple of years.
Noticed on my morning constitutional to purchase the Racing Post (hugely expensive but my indulgence) petrol at my local Tesco's has crept up to 123.9p per litre.
I think the price has risen 15p since last year.
Oil is now in the mid-60s per dollar which is noteworthy for those who don't seem concerned about inflation. It's more than doubled in the past year since that day when the futures price went negative.
It's an indicator of growing economic activity but it's a reminder one of the definitions of inflation is too much money chasing too few goods. Whether it's holidays, indoor pub meals or anything else, the notion of £15 billion or more suddenly coming into the economy (10% of an alleged middle class cash reserve of £150 billion which we are all champing at the bit to spend apparently) isn't going to be without consequences.
I know @MaxPB is relaxed about inflation - I'm not. The return of a more normal monetary policy with rising inflation and interest rates will be a culture shock to those who've spent the last 30 years enjoying cheap food, cheap fuel, cheap money and rising asset values.
It's understandable businesses which have suffered so much in the past year need to get trading back but as the gambler learns not to chase their losses there's only so much that can be done to retrieve the losses of 2020. If you only have 50 covers, you can only fill 50 covers even if the demand is for 150 so you either open later or charge more - what else can you do if everyone wants to eat out (or in) at the same time?
If there was a way of staggering the "splurge" it would be so much more helpful but human nature being what it is, the line from the song is apposite "I want it all and I want it now".
I'm relaxed about inflation in the UK, globally less so. I think the US economy is going to massively overheat and it will end badly for American people. We haven't got as much of an expansionary monetary and fiscal policy as the US and it's quite likely now that we'll see little to no permanent scarring to the economy, just a one off £400bn hit.
My major worries:
Europe - it feels like there will be significant permanent economic scarring in many EU countries. Supply chains - this could spill over into the real economy towards the end of the year as business and consumer demand grows in recovered economies but the supply chains take another year to respond (inflation ahoy). US overheating - Biden is pumping trillions into the US economy but at the moment it has nowhere to go other than causing inflation. Another US worry is that Biden will find it difficult to turn off stimulus cheques and that will continue feed the inflationary dragon. Our furlough scheme was a much better design than helicopter money.
Well, they got me voting for them last week because they tried Liberalism.
There's an obvious space for them in an age of state control, ever greater impingements on personal privacy, restricted choice, caveated freedoms and attitudes to identity so extreme they become illiberal - but I don't see them taking it.
It's not even that hard to get started. All it takes is for Ed Davey to say to the media he's going to give a powerful speech on what it means to be liberal and the future of liberalism, very well trailed, and then give a very good speech which is well briefed out afterwards.
That'd be a start.
The trouble is everyone has their own definition of liberalism irrespective of whether you've read Mill, Hobbs, Locke or anyone else.
I'm no longer in the Party but the fact remains a) there are more Conservative voters than Labour ones especially in the seats the LDs seek to win and b) the current Conservative Party has moved a long way from the pro-business small-state stance it advanced in the 80s and 90s in particular.
The other "truth" is people vote Liberal or LD under two sets of circumstances - one, when both the Conservative and Labour parties look useless (Feb 74) or when things are going well Conservative voters no longer fear voting Labour or LD because they know a non-Conservative Government won't affect their wealth (1997, 2001).
Short of a substantial schism within either major party (and that's unlikely currently), the LDs have, as always, to rely on matters outside their control. Either Johnsonian populism implodes dramatically (not inconceivable down the line but not likely now) or Labour becomes a non-socialist party of the centre or centre-left for whom Conservatives can vote (or vote LD) without fear.
If I were advising Ed Davey, I'd tell him to tack back towards One Nation Conservatism mixed with solid environmental policy based not on eco-authoritarianism but on the advance of technology (it's an area he knows well) while advocating fiscal sense (and that means recognising the problems of deficit AND debt and advocating solutions to turn the former into surplus and the successful reduction and management of the latter).
I'd vote for that party, but ultimately I think the Lib Dems are too wedded to the EU and remainerism and would seek to unwind brexit as part of any coalition.
Um. What are we going to do about vax refuseniks? Big question facing the nations coming towards the end of their vaccine programme now I think.
Honestly, nothing. We unlock as normal and if they die then it's really no one's problem but their own. These people have chosen not to be vaccinated when it's been available to them all year. They're selfish arseholes and we can't delay returning to normality for them.
It's an indicator of growing economic activity but it's a reminder one of the definitions of inflation is too much money chasing too few goods. Whether it's holidays, indoor pub meals or anything else, the notion of £15 billion or more suddenly coming into the economy (10% of an alleged middle class cash reserve of £150 billion which we are all champing at the bit to spend apparently) isn't going to be without consequences.
The retail price of bikes has gone up about 15% in the last two years for an equivalent spec.
The price of my new motorbike went from approximately £14k in March when I ordered to £15,500 when it arrived last week.
There is a lot of inflationary pressure out there...
Did you have to pay the old or the new price?
The new... demand far outstrips supply due to shipping constraints. The dealer politely intimated that if I were not delighted with the 'adjusted' price then I should feel free to fuck myself.
I paid because me and my mate still think we are riding to North Africa by the end of the year.
Um. What are we going to do about vax refuseniks? Big question facing the nations coming towards the end of their vaccine programme now I think.
Honestly, nothing. We unlock as normal and if they die then it's really no one's problem but their own. These people have chosen not to be vaccinated when it's been available to them all year. They're selfish arseholes and we can't delay returning to normality for them.
My sense is that Whitty et al don’t agree. There seems to be a subtle shifting of the goalposts whereby anti-vaxxers should be protected from their own decisions.
We are just in the process of buying a house, and decided to embrace diversity by moving next door to a massive traveller site.
All the progressive feel good qualities of London at half the price of the houses 5 mins away!
You'll be quaffing cinnamon almond matcha lattes afore ye know it.
Shame to be moving though. There is a quaint little gathering every Sunday near us, down a road called Landers Lane next to the old A13 in Rainham - Inaccessible to motorists as crowds watch the men bare knuckle fighting all afternoon. Good for the economy it seems, as all the cars the crowd travel in seem to be brand new Range's, and the £50s are flying about like confetti betting on whose gonna get knocked out!
The locals love it! Parris should come down and watch one weekend, that'll open his blinkered mind
I think Parris was trying to be kind to the travellers there - their lifestyle is unspeakably shit and the last thing any moral state should do is encourage it. I confess I've thought similar things myself, as I hurried past the burly men drinking beer outside the dilapidated caravan on the business estate where I work, but they, off course, would beg to differ.
Um. What are we going to do about vax refuseniks? Big question facing the nations coming towards the end of their vaccine programme now I think.
Honestly, nothing. We unlock as normal and if they die then it's really no one's problem but their own. These people have chosen not to be vaccinated when it's been available to them all year. They're selfish arseholes and we can't delay returning to normality for them.
My sense is that Whitty et al don’t agree. There seems to be a subtle shifting of the goalposts whereby anti-vaxxers should be protected from their own decisions.
That's when it's time for politicians to step up and tell them to get fucked. A few anti-vaxxers can't hold the whole country hostage.
Julia Hartley-Brewer @JuliaHB1 · 30m So excuse me if I take SAGE predictions of doom and gloom every time we open up with a large pinch of salt. Their computer models have been wrong every single time. 5/
She is certainly correct that they were massively wrong about schools reopening. That proved to be one of the worst predictions of the pandemic.
On the contrary, they were quite right that schools reopening would lead to a rise in infections. A very substantial one.
Where they (and I, for that matter) got it wrong was that only applied where there was a pre-existing reservoir of infections.
So it led to a rapid rise in the autumn, and in March the pattern was different (because closing schools and unis at last had brought it under control again very rapidly - as indeed it did in March and April - and vaccines prevented it from spreading).
The tragedy therefore was the lack of thought given to extending the breaks in the school year so that natural breaks of 3-4 weeks could be built into the school year and we could have avoided 23% of children being off repeatedly and the huge surge in deaths in December.
And therefore, vaccines should also mean this September will follow a different pattern.
She’s referring to the March reopening. They were massively wrong - no doubt about that.
As it turned out, yes, they were wrong about this March. Just as I was wrong about last March.
But it wasn’t an unreasonable extrapolation based on (a) past experience and (b) the data they had. Moreover, the suspicion more than lingers that Johnson - who led us not forget, misled the House of Commons about what he was actually doing - did it because he desperately needed some good headlines, and so took a serious risk for the sake of his personal popularity. Fortunately it is one that has mostly come off, but if it hadn’t he would have had *yet another* load of deaths on his conscience- as when he refused to make the call to shut them on December 1st and indeed took highly illegal legal action to force schools buckling under the pressure to stay open.
What bothers me is less that SAGE have made errors based on insufficient data - that’s understandable - but they appear totally unwilling to update their views in light of new data. Bluntly, if schools can be open and the virus stay under control, there are very few other places that need to stay shut. Schools by their very nature but also by their design and overcrowding are just about the worst imaginable environment to spread it, apart from small open plan offices without opening windows. Heck, even pubs spread it far less than schools.
So there is no reason whatsoever to significantly delay reopening now, and anyone who says otherwise is behaving like that nutter Contrarian. They are speaking about the prejudices not about facts.
And that just ain’t science.
And therefore such people shouldn’t be considered scientists.
Owen Jones Rose @OwenJones84 · 2h A question that urgently needs to be answered is - did the government delay putting India on the red list because it wanted to prioritise negotiating a trade deal?
That decision could end up having disastrous consequences for a nation desperately hoping the nightmare was ending
Not sure we will ever be allowed the truth on this one. But it seems a slam dunk to me.
The Greens only appeared to do well as some SNP people gave them list votes as giving SNP list is a wasted vote. They did NOTHING on constituency and on any other system the useless toerags would get ZERO seats. They are an abomination of gravy train nutjobs.
Um. What are we going to do about vax refuseniks? Big question facing the nations coming towards the end of their vaccine programme now I think.
Honestly, nothing. We unlock as normal and if they die then it's really no one's problem but their own. These people have chosen not to be vaccinated when it's been available to them all year. They're selfish arseholes and we can't delay returning to normality for them.
My sense is that Whitty et al don’t agree. There seems to be a subtle shifting of the goalposts whereby anti-vaxxers should be protected from their own decisions.
That's when it's time for politicians to step up and tell them to get fucked. A few anti-vaxxers can't hold the whole country hostage.
Agree, although there is a caveat.
Lockdowns were to keep the health service from imploding.
That could still happen in theory (although I suspect it won’t) with refuseniks needing treatment.
Therefore, should the call be made that anyone who has been offered and refused the vaccine for anything other than a legitimate medical reason should be refused NHS treatment if they become ill with Covid? Or be ranked lower in the triage priorities?
A nasty call perhaps, but one that may need to be made in Bolton if things deteriorate.
Um. What are we going to do about vax refuseniks? Big question facing the nations coming towards the end of their vaccine programme now I think.
Honestly, nothing. We unlock as normal and if they die then it's really no one's problem but their own. These people have chosen not to be vaccinated when it's been available to them all year. They're selfish arseholes and we can't delay returning to normality for them.
My sense is that Whitty et al don’t agree. There seems to be a subtle shifting of the goalposts whereby anti-vaxxers should be protected from their own decisions.
That's when it's time for politicians to step up and tell them to get fucked. A few anti-vaxxers can't hold the whole country hostage.
Agree, although there is a caveat.
Lockdowns were to keep the health service from imploding.
That could still happen in theory (although I suspect it won’t) with refuseniks needing treatment.
Therefore, should the call be made that anyone who has been offered and refused the vaccine for anything other than a legitimate medical reason should be refused NHS treatment if they become ill with Covid? Or be ranked lower in the triage priorities?
A nasty call perhaps, but one that may need to be made in Bolton if things deteriorate.
Or just charged. Something affordable (over time) for all but annoying. £1000?
Um. What are we going to do about vax refuseniks? Big question facing the nations coming towards the end of their vaccine programme now I think.
Honestly, nothing. We unlock as normal and if they die then it's really no one's problem but their own. These people have chosen not to be vaccinated when it's been available to them all year. They're selfish arseholes and we can't delay returning to normality for them.
My sense is that Whitty et al don’t agree. There seems to be a subtle shifting of the goalposts whereby anti-vaxxers should be protected from their own decisions.
That's when it's time for politicians to step up and tell them to get fucked. A few anti-vaxxers can't hold the whole country hostage.
Agree, although there is a caveat.
Lockdowns were to keep the health service from imploding.
That could still happen in theory (although I suspect it won’t) with refuseniks needing treatment.
Therefore, should the call be made that anyone who has been offered and refused the vaccine for anything other than a legitimate medical reason should be refused NHS treatment if they become ill with Covid? Or be ranked lower in the triage priorities?
A nasty call perhaps, but one that may need to be made in Bolton if things deteriorate.
It's not a difficult decision, the NHS has offered free, safe vaccines to almost the whole nation. People need to take responsibility for their poor decisions.
Um. What are we going to do about vax refuseniks? Big question facing the nations coming towards the end of their vaccine programme now I think.
Honestly, nothing. We unlock as normal and if they die then it's really no one's problem but their own. These people have chosen not to be vaccinated when it's been available to them all year. They're selfish arseholes and we can't delay returning to normality for them.
My sense is that Whitty et al don’t agree. There seems to be a subtle shifting of the goalposts whereby anti-vaxxers should be protected from their own decisions.
That's when it's time for politicians to step up and tell them to get fucked. A few anti-vaxxers can't hold the whole country hostage.
Agree, although there is a caveat.
Lockdowns were to keep the health service from imploding.
That could still happen in theory (although I suspect it won’t) with refuseniks needing treatment.
Therefore, should the call be made that anyone who has been offered and refused the vaccine for anything other than a legitimate medical reason should be refused NHS treatment if they become ill with Covid? Or be ranked lower in the triage priorities?
A nasty call perhaps, but one that may need to be made in Bolton if things deteriorate.
Or just charged. Something affordable (over time) for all but annoying. £1000?
I don’t think this government will charge for people using the NHS. There would be too many claims about privatisation.
Um. What are we going to do about vax refuseniks? Big question facing the nations coming towards the end of their vaccine programme now I think.
Honestly, nothing. We unlock as normal and if they die then it's really no one's problem but their own. These people have chosen not to be vaccinated when it's been available to them all year. They're selfish arseholes and we can't delay returning to normality for them.
My sense is that Whitty et al don’t agree. There seems to be a subtle shifting of the goalposts whereby anti-vaxxers should be protected from their own decisions.
Um. What are we going to do about vax refuseniks? Big question facing the nations coming towards the end of their vaccine programme now I think.
Honestly, nothing. We unlock as normal and if they die then it's really no one's problem but their own. These people have chosen not to be vaccinated when it's been available to them all year. They're selfish arseholes and we can't delay returning to normality for them.
My sense is that Whitty et al don’t agree. There seems to be a subtle shifting of the goalposts whereby anti-vaxxers should be protected from their own decisions.
Under the guise of “if they clog up the NHS then we all lose”
Um. What are we going to do about vax refuseniks? Big question facing the nations coming towards the end of their vaccine programme now I think.
Honestly, nothing. We unlock as normal and if they die then it's really no one's problem but their own. These people have chosen not to be vaccinated when it's been available to them all year. They're selfish arseholes and we can't delay returning to normality for them.
Yup. Actions have consequences. Open up as planned.
Um. What are we going to do about vax refuseniks? Big question facing the nations coming towards the end of their vaccine programme now I think.
Honestly, nothing. We unlock as normal and if they die then it's really no one's problem but their own. These people have chosen not to be vaccinated when it's been available to them all year. They're selfish arseholes and we can't delay returning to normality for them.
My sense is that Whitty et al don’t agree. There seems to be a subtle shifting of the goalposts whereby anti-vaxxers should be protected from their own decisions.
That's when it's time for politicians to step up and tell them to get fucked. A few anti-vaxxers can't hold the whole country hostage.
Agree, although there is a caveat.
Lockdowns were to keep the health service from imploding.
That could still happen in theory (although I suspect it won’t) with refuseniks needing treatment.
Therefore, should the call be made that anyone who has been offered and refused the vaccine for anything other than a legitimate medical reason should be refused NHS treatment if they become ill with Covid? Or be ranked lower in the triage priorities?
A nasty call perhaps, but one that may need to be made in Bolton if things deteriorate.
It's not a difficult decision, the NHS has offered free, safe vaccines to almost the whole nation. People need to take responsibility for their poor decisions.
That might have washed fifty years ago, but these days everything is somebody else's fault.
Well, they got me voting for them last week because they tried Liberalism.
There's an obvious space for them in an age of state control, ever greater impingements on personal privacy, restricted choice, caveated freedoms and attitudes to identity so extreme they become illiberal - but I don't see them taking it.
It's not even that hard to get started. All it takes is for Ed Davey to say to the media he's going to give a powerful speech on what it means to be liberal and the future of liberalism, very well trailed, and then give a very good speech which is well briefed out afterwards.
That'd be a start.
The trouble is everyone has their own definition of liberalism irrespective of whether you've read Mill, Hobbs, Locke or anyone else.
I'm no longer in the Party but the fact remains a) there are more Conservative voters than Labour ones especially in the seats the LDs seek to win and b) the current Conservative Party has moved a long way from the pro-business small-state stance it advanced in the 80s and 90s in particular.
The other "truth" is people vote Liberal or LD under two sets of circumstances - one, when both the Conservative and Labour parties look useless (Feb 74) or when things are going well Conservative voters no longer fear voting Labour or LD because they know a non-Conservative Government won't affect their wealth (1997, 2001).
Short of a substantial schism within either major party (and that's unlikely currently), the LDs have, as always, to rely on matters outside their control. Either Johnsonian populism implodes dramatically (not inconceivable down the line but not likely now) or Labour becomes a non-socialist party of the centre or centre-left for whom Conservatives can vote (or vote LD) without fear.
If I were advising Ed Davey, I'd tell him to tack back towards One Nation Conservatism mixed with solid environmental policy based not on eco-authoritarianism but on the advance of technology (it's an area he knows well) while advocating fiscal sense (and that means recognising the problems of deficit AND debt and advocating solutions to turn the former into surplus and the successful reduction and management of the latter).
He has not been seen or heard of since he won the diddy Lib Dem leadership race
Um. What are we going to do about vax refuseniks? Big question facing the nations coming towards the end of their vaccine programme now I think.
Honestly, nothing. We unlock as normal and if they die then it's really no one's problem but their own. These people have chosen not to be vaccinated when it's been available to them all year. They're selfish arseholes and we can't delay returning to normality for them.
My sense is that Whitty et al don’t agree. There seems to be a subtle shifting of the goalposts whereby anti-vaxxers should be protected from their own decisions.
Under the guise of “if they clog up the NHS then we all lose”
That's a time limited issue, it will be a bit like a fever. Loads of them will get sick, die and non-vaccinated people will get acquired immunity. Within weeks of reopening. That's the choice they've made by not taking the vaccine.
Um. What are we going to do about vax refuseniks? Big question facing the nations coming towards the end of their vaccine programme now I think.
Honestly, nothing. We unlock as normal and if they die then it's really no one's problem but their own. These people have chosen not to be vaccinated when it's been available to them all year. They're selfish arseholes and we can't delay returning to normality for them.
My sense is that Whitty et al don’t agree. There seems to be a subtle shifting of the goalposts whereby anti-vaxxers should be protected from their own decisions.
That's when it's time for politicians to step up and tell them to get fucked. A few anti-vaxxers can't hold the whole country hostage.
Agree, although there is a caveat.
Lockdowns were to keep the health service from imploding.
That could still happen in theory (although I suspect it won’t) with refuseniks needing treatment.
Therefore, should the call be made that anyone who has been offered and refused the vaccine for anything other than a legitimate medical reason should be refused NHS treatment if they become ill with Covid? Or be ranked lower in the triage priorities?
A nasty call perhaps, but one that may need to be made in Bolton if things deteriorate.
Or just charged. Something affordable (over time) for all but annoying. £1000?
I don’t think this government will charge for people using the NHS. There would be too many claims about privatisation.
Wales or Scotland might go that way, I suppose.
Yes, perhaps charging for the NHS is an impassable barrier, whatever the circumstances. Withdraw access to stuff without a proper excuse for not being vaccinated? Lower benefits/pensions because society has agreed they are selfish?
Owen Jones Rose @OwenJones84 · 2h A question that urgently needs to be answered is - did the government delay putting India on the red list because it wanted to prioritise negotiating a trade deal?
That decision could end up having disastrous consequences for a nation desperately hoping the nightmare was ending
Not sure we will ever be allowed the truth on this one. But it seems a slam dunk to me.
Hmm. I doubt Boris is bothered about trade deals one way or the other these days. The Truss, however, is a different matter - all those juicy approval ratings amongst the Conservative membership.
Definitely a mild headache (As well as the dead arm) morning after post 2nd Pfizer. I know how sorry you'll all feel for me
Well, you have my sympathy at least. Was fine after the first dose, but definitely felt 'under the weather' after the second. I was OK a day or so later, though. And yes, it was Pfizer. Best wishes.
Apart from arm a bit sore for 2 days, I was fine with both Pfizer. Wife had a few days flu like, aching bones, etc with AZ both times but nothing major.
Actually I’ve got it. For those who’ve refused the vaccine, reopen the Nightingales (to keep them away from the truly vulnerable who can’t be vaccinated) and just leave them to it.
Comments
It is the Orkney islands.
But I wouldn't differentiate between the two. I didn't feel I could reasonably stay within the party at large if I couldn't recommend to people to vote for it at the election which was clearly coming - and indeed, didn't know how I'd vote myself at that time.
Even though it started while Cameron was PM and Cameron got paid huge amounts.
I met good and bad people from many other parties but those two stood out for me as nasty and deceitful scumbags.
Whether that's good for the LibDems is debateable.
The reason: the Conservative was planning to bring in car parking charges in the village centre, where they do most of their shopping, and he was also extremely pompous.
No-one can take any of their voters for granted, IMHO. As soon as you do you lose them.
So why are they so obsessive about big gallumphing interventions by Government, rather than more locally-based, flexible, and efficient, answers, driven by regulated markets?
An example: I look at doing External Wall Insulation every so often, and I have yet to find a house where it is cost effective or energy effective, once all the normal easy things have been done.
The last time I looked there was a grant of 4-6k available on a 14k project to do it. Yet when I spoke to the company actually doing the work they would have done it for 9k as a private customer. So the entire Govt funding would be absorbed by oiling the administrative wheels. That is so often how 5-year-plan type programmes fail.
Compare with the gradual ramp up on energy efficiency for rentals, which works well.
I've always framed it that Greens are socialist before they are green, which imo wrecks everything (you will not agree!).
Another example may be the fuss when solar panel FIT subsidies were reduced, and were acting as a Government cash-cow for property companies. To this day were I to invest in a house with the early FIT arrangaments it is worth up to an extra 1% or so on the rental return in most places. Greens demanded their continuance.
Why? I'm not inclined to be sympathetic to the people fussing about the new Planning Permission now. A Nimbyism of sorts.
The closure in 2017 was announced at least 6 months in advance, yet they all decided to sit on their hands when something could have been done - even as simple as taking a minority stake in a business which has changed hand several times.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/02/britains-oldest-bell-foundry-cast-big-ben-close/
Then it took some time to do the sale etc. Again, an opportunity not taken up.
A lottery grant and some private or trust money could have sufficed.
There is no shortage of money in London. The price of one decent normal sized house could have made the change.
The handbell side continues. The design base has been purchased by another company in the bell trade.
“Palestinian lives matter”
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/14/opinion/bernie-sanders-israel-palestine-gaza.html
Candidates matter.
What he needs is some sort of office manager.
https://twitter.com/arambaut/status/1393508258975993857?s=20
Now the SNP is No 3, so Blackford is called, and gets, among other things TV time.
If,...... yes I know it's a very big IF ....... after the next election we were in a similar situation to 2005, then the LD's would be bigger than the SNP and Davey would be on TV every Wednesday at least.
And I suspect there are two former wives, a former Sun photographer and several former mistresses who might disagree.
Paragraph 2, he had a bag carrier, Dominic Cummings.
However, I am not sure I agree with his claim that ‘nobody is saying’ Israel has no right to exist. Far too many on the left are saying just that, referring to it as a colonial era relic that needs to be removed. And Hamas undoubtedly says it. Hell, it’s in their bloody constitution FFS!
And that is the nub of the problem. As long as Israel feels it is threatened, it will always grossly overreact to any threat - even threats it has created itself. And the Netanyahu government has built on the work of previous governments of Israel to inculcate that siege mentality and ensure it is widespread. At the bottom of the mind of every Israeli is, ‘if we don’t stand up for ourselves, there might be another Holocaust.’
And unfortunately, they’re both right, and taking the very actions that make it more likely.
'I know he's a Remoany c***, but he has his good bits.'
https://twitter.com/gem_abbott/status/1393486813294174209?s=20
Also, the moment restrictions are gone, all their influence is too.
Where they (and I, for that matter) got it wrong was that only applied where there was a pre-existing reservoir of infections.
So it led to a rapid rise in the autumn, and in March the pattern was different (because closing schools and unis at last had brought it under control again very rapidly - as indeed it did in March and April - and vaccines prevented it from spreading).
The tragedy therefore was the lack of thought given to extending the breaks in the school year so that natural breaks of 3-4 weeks could be built into the school year and we could have avoided 23% of children being off repeatedly and the huge surge in deaths in December.
And therefore, vaccines should also mean this September will follow a different pattern.
Its the unorganised finances that cause him problems.
And Cummings wasn't his bag carrier but his ideas man.
I don't know who is supposed to be the Boris bag carrier but whoever it is (assuming there is one) is a combination of incompetent and weak.
All the progressive feel good qualities of London at half the price of the houses 5 mins away!
I don't know if it is mentioned downthread but the historic disadvantage of the Greens ("single issue") becomes an advantage when a) that issue resonates and b) all the other parties are triangulating wildly around a messy focus-grouped purposelessness.
Although again, the article mentions that. The actions against settlers are clearly red meat to Netanyahu’s right wing, just at the moment he’s facing both severe political and legal challenges.
He is a fool, and a selfish, self-indulgent and dangerous fool. But then, he always was.
I would have said that it was about 50 myself.
And TBH, I don't think ALL the other 50 are quite in the same league.
I've been dealing with one locally for 3 or 4 years where the Council and their Planning Policies have effectively been sent packing. They lost their first attempt at enforcement, and it has been more or less downhill since.
I hope you recover soon.
Think of it as pain shows lots of immune system gain.
*As long as they don’t bugger about over lack of anything except AZ, or I shall be distinctly annoyed.
Best wishes.
Now that they've discovered this new Indian variant it feels as if they're moving the goal posts...
Many of these communities benefitted in their communication with the rest of the world from sharing spaces with the New Age traveller movement in the and late '80s and early '90s, but that was all largely ended with the Criminal Justice Act.
https://reaction.life/eu-recovery-fund-is-fiscal-union-by-the-back-door/
Noticed on my morning constitutional to purchase the Racing Post (hugely expensive but my indulgence) petrol at my local Tesco's has crept up to 123.9p per litre.
I think the price has risen 15p since last year.
Oil is now in the mid-60s per dollar which is noteworthy for those who don't seem concerned about inflation. It's more than doubled in the past year since that day when the futures price went negative.
It's an indicator of growing economic activity but it's a reminder one of the definitions of inflation is too much money chasing too few goods. Whether it's holidays, indoor pub meals or anything else, the notion of £15 billion or more suddenly coming into the economy (10% of an alleged middle class cash reserve of £150 billion which we are all champing at the bit to spend apparently) isn't going to be without consequences.
I know @MaxPB is relaxed about inflation - I'm not. The return of a more normal monetary policy with rising inflation and interest rates will be a culture shock to those who've spent the last 30 years enjoying cheap food, cheap fuel, cheap money and rising asset values.
It's understandable businesses which have suffered so much in the past year need to get trading back but as the gambler learns not to chase their losses there's only so much that can be done to retrieve the losses of 2020. If you only have 50 covers, you can only fill 50 covers even if the demand is for 150 so you either open later or charge more - what else can you do if everyone wants to eat out (or in) at the same time?
If there was a way of staggering the "splurge" it would be so much more helpful but human nature being what it is, the line from the song is apposite "I want it all and I want it now".
The locals love it! Parris should come down and watch one weekend, that'll open his blinkered mind
I'm no longer in the Party but the fact remains a) there are more Conservative voters than Labour ones especially in the seats the LDs seek to win and b) the current Conservative Party has moved a long way from the pro-business small-state stance it advanced in the 80s and 90s in particular.
The other "truth" is people vote Liberal or LD under two sets of circumstances - one, when both the Conservative and Labour parties look useless (Feb 74) or when things are going well Conservative voters no longer fear voting Labour or LD because they know a non-Conservative Government won't affect their wealth (1997, 2001).
Short of a substantial schism within either major party (and that's unlikely currently), the LDs have, as always, to rely on matters outside their control. Either Johnsonian populism implodes dramatically (not inconceivable down the line but not likely now) or Labour becomes a non-socialist party of the centre or centre-left for whom Conservatives can vote (or vote LD) without fear.
If I were advising Ed Davey, I'd tell him to tack back towards One Nation Conservatism mixed with solid environmental policy based not on eco-authoritarianism but on the advance of technology (it's an area he knows well) while advocating fiscal sense (and that means recognising the problems of deficit AND debt and advocating solutions to turn the former into surplus and the successful reduction and management of the latter).
The price of my new motorbike went from approximately £14k in March when I ordered to £15,500 when it arrived last week.
There is a lot of inflationary pressure out there...
https://www.google.com/search?q=https://www.ft.com/content/414e8e47-e904-42ac-80ea-5d6c38282cac
I'll PM you the Planning page.
The Council are being played like a violin.
My major worries:
Europe - it feels like there will be significant permanent economic scarring in many EU countries.
Supply chains - this could spill over into the real economy towards the end of the year as business and consumer demand grows in recovered economies but the supply chains take another year to respond (inflation ahoy).
US overheating - Biden is pumping trillions into the US economy but at the moment it has nowhere to go other than causing inflation. Another US worry is that Biden will find it difficult to turn off stimulus cheques and that will continue feed the inflationary dragon. Our furlough scheme was a much better design than helicopter money.
Via @Independent
Um. What are we going to do about vax refuseniks? Big question facing the nations coming towards the end of their vaccine programme now I think.
On topic, the voting system in the mayoral election is good for the Greens. Labour voters can show their greenness without denying Labour a vote.
I paid because me and my mate still think we are riding to North Africa by the end of the year.
But it wasn’t an unreasonable extrapolation based on (a) past experience and (b) the data they had. Moreover, the suspicion more than lingers that Johnson - who led us not forget, misled the House of Commons about what he was actually doing - did it because he desperately needed some good headlines, and so took a serious risk for the sake of his personal popularity. Fortunately it is one that has mostly come off, but if it hadn’t he would have had *yet another* load of deaths on his conscience- as when he refused to make the call to shut them on December 1st and indeed took highly illegal legal action to force schools buckling under the pressure to stay open.
What bothers me is less that SAGE have made errors based on insufficient data - that’s understandable - but they appear totally unwilling to update their views in light of new data. Bluntly, if schools can be open and the virus stay under control, there are very few other places that need to stay shut. Schools by their very nature but also by their design and overcrowding are just about the worst imaginable environment to spread it, apart from small open plan offices without opening windows. Heck, even pubs spread it far less than schools.
So there is no reason whatsoever to significantly delay reopening now, and anyone who says otherwise is behaving like that nutter Contrarian. They are speaking about the prejudices not about facts.
And that just ain’t science.
And therefore such people shouldn’t be considered scientists.
Scotland & NI later, no Wales numbers on a Saturday
https://twitter.com/HugoGye/status/1393526782234595330?s=20
Owen Jones Rose
@OwenJones84
·
2h
A question that urgently needs to be answered is - did the government delay putting India on the red list because it wanted to prioritise negotiating a trade deal?
That decision could end up having disastrous consequences for a nation desperately hoping the nightmare was ending
Not sure we will ever be allowed the truth on this one. But it seems a slam dunk to me.
Lockdowns were to keep the health service from imploding.
That could still happen in theory (although I suspect it won’t) with refuseniks needing treatment.
Therefore, should the call be made that anyone who has been offered and refused the vaccine for anything other than a legitimate medical reason should be refused NHS treatment if they become ill with Covid? Or be ranked lower in the triage priorities?
A nasty call perhaps, but one that may need to be made in Bolton if things deteriorate.
Wales or Scotland might go that way, I suppose.