Okay team I think you've got my point. This vaccine was rushed. Everyone saying oh it wasn't vaccines have been around for ages it's just that the approval process was truncated or it was just emergency authorisation or ..
The people who developed and authorised it have been proudly proclaiming how quick the process has been.
But whatever...it's a small step from there to say, as plenty are on here right now, that it should be compulsory.
And still you don't get it.
Your opinion is that it was rushed, but while it has been done swiftly, precisely zero corners have been cut with regard to safety. What has not been done, in your opinion? How long ‘should’ it take?
No idea.
I just googled vaccine trial length and the first result has this to start:
"Vaccine development is a long, complex process, often lasting 10-15 years and involving a combination of public and private involvement."
Except in pandemics. They did much the same during the East African ebola outbreak, they can now control it with ring vaccination
I googled timeline of Ebola vaccine.
"The period of 5 years from the start of Phase 1 trials in Oct 2014 to the approval of this vaccine in Nov 2019, was much faster than the typical 10–15 year timeline for vaccine development and approval4. A timeline of the key activities in the development of this Ebola vaccine is summarized in Fig."
Because the whole world didn't drop everything and prioritise Ebola.
Exactly. We rushed it.
No, we didn't. We put in what was needed to get it done.
Absolutely. The process was rushed because it was important to us. Vs the usual vaccine development timeframe.
The process was organised smartly to avoid wasting time, but no it wasn't "rushed" as in corners being cut.
Labour has said the government should end the consideration of academic qualifications for civil service jobs apart from where directly related to the post, to end the “snobbery” over degrees.
Labour’s deputy leader, Angela Rayner, said degrees and A-levels should only be taken into account where they are a genuine occupational requirement, such as science qualifications.
So twenty years of pushing degrees as an end in themselves (notionally to develop an educated workforce well placed for the workforce of the future) with costs increasingly passed on to students who pursue them (starting right from the initial £1,000 fees back in 1998) on the basis of the “lifetime graduate premium”, and now all to be treated equally because it’s all “snobbery”!
Isn't that much the same perennial argument that we see here, that many degrees are pointless and no substitute for on the job training? That they are just an entrance ticket to a white collar career?
He has absolutely nailed it here. Describes almost every avid Remainer I know (as in know on the internet)
"Here in Britain, Labour is lumped in with a “big blob” of its own. Too often a loud part of that blob sounds like either a select priesthood, speaking to itself about questions that would strike most people as abstract angels-on-a-pinhead theology, or a self-appointed police force dispensing constant, scolding judgment, wagging its finger at the latest supposed infraction of progressive standards. It’s exhausting and so unappealing that even a serially dishonest and incompetent government – but one that seems to accept you, your country and your way of life without pursed-lipped judgment – seems preferable by comparison."
Reading the grauniad comments I am struck by the wide division between those who accept the article has validity and those who absolutely refuse their reality. It rather makes Mr. Freedlands point for him.
There was a similar article in Unherd a couple of days ago, which concluded with a similar point: People will often put up with being ruled by people who cheat them, or lie to them, or who mismanage the country - as recent polls illustrate. But they won't put up with being ruled by people who openly despise them. https://unherd.com/2021/06/the-self-loathing-of-britains-elites/
Yes, I think that does explain the C and A result, people won't vote for those that despise them.
The C&A result is an ancient type of byelection result, with little evidence that it is about being despised and loads of evidence that it's about how to vote at byelections. Massive anti governments swings are common where the circumstances are right, and are usually altered back over time or by the next election. The new trend is the government winning against the opposition. The Tories are in with a chance (less chance than the bookies say) with this yet again.
The collapse of the non big urban (London) blue wall is massively overstated. Look at the map as a whole rather than a few interesting cases.
Freedland is excellent but still manages to take for granted that Labour is the right answer to the progressive cause. Maybe it isn't. Maybe the Tories are the most progressive party around.
If Labour stood where the Tories stand about the aspirational middling sort I would vote for them in GEs as I do in local elections. But nationally they are a crowd of uncommunicating enclaves of special interest groups who patronise people like me.
The Tories aren't progressive. And that isn't what the WWC red wallers want. They actively sought and voted for regressive politics. They're not booing the England team taking the knee because they want progressive politics.
Nice try, but you may be making some assumptions about what progress is about that aren't shared by the middling sort. Some people think virtue signalling is never progressive, but helping and supporting people is.
So what help and support for the victims of racism do the boo-ers engage in?
If you believe blm is divisive and does more to promote racial disharmony than the problems it purports to fix then showing your contempt for it is the positive thing to do.
Before you whine on about taking the knee isn't connected to blm remember people like you claim the england flag is associated with racism because people like the bnp use it. BLM use taking the knee...it is therefore tainted by those arses
I don't think the English flag racist and often fly it during tournaments. I just respect the English players too in their statements about racist abuse.
I would be grateful if you would not misrepresent my views on these things. It doesn't help discussion when you attribute to me beliefs that I do not hold.
I did not say you specifically I said people like you meaning the progressive left and sorry yes a lot of them do regard the english flag as racist.
Okay team I think you've got my point. This vaccine was rushed. Everyone saying oh it wasn't vaccines have been around for ages it's just that the approval process was truncated or it was just emergency authorisation or ..
The people who developed and authorised it have been proudly proclaiming how quick the process has been.
But whatever...it's a small step from there to say, as plenty are on here right now, that it should be compulsory.
And still you don't get it.
Your opinion is that it was rushed, but while it has been done swiftly, precisely zero corners have been cut with regard to safety. What has not been done, in your opinion? How long ‘should’ it take?
No idea.
I just googled vaccine trial length and the first result has this to start:
"Vaccine development is a long, complex process, often lasting 10-15 years and involving a combination of public and private involvement."
Except in pandemics. They did much the same during the East African ebola outbreak, they can now control it with ring vaccination
I googled timeline of Ebola vaccine.
"The period of 5 years from the start of Phase 1 trials in Oct 2014 to the approval of this vaccine in Nov 2019, was much faster than the typical 10–15 year timeline for vaccine development and approval4. A timeline of the key activities in the development of this Ebola vaccine is summarized in Fig."
They didn’t exactly have an enormous pool of people in which to test and measure the effectiveness of Ebola vaccines. And you’re hardly going to get volunteers willing to be infected with “mild” forms of the virus to speed it up further.
Yes I'm sure. At least you're now accepting that the vaccine was new and they did most of the trials in the real world with us lot.
How do you think they normally do trials? In the real world, with people. There have been times during this pandemic when trials have slowed for lack of people infected with the virus. If everywhere had been like New Zealand there would have been no vaccines by now (probably no need either but that is a different debate). Clearly in a pandemic there are far more people to sample, and it is far easier to gain evidence on effectiveness in record times.
Okay team I think you've got my point. This vaccine was rushed. Everyone saying oh it wasn't vaccines have been around for ages it's just that the approval process was truncated or it was just emergency authorisation or ..
The people who developed and authorised it have been proudly proclaiming how quick the process has been.
But whatever...it's a small step from there to say, as plenty are on here right now, that it should be compulsory.
And still you don't get it.
Your opinion is that it was rushed, but while it has been done swiftly, precisely zero corners have been cut with regard to safety. What has not been done, in your opinion? How long ‘should’ it take?
No idea.
I just googled vaccine trial length and the first result has this to start:
"Vaccine development is a long, complex process, often lasting 10-15 years and involving a combination of public and private involvement."
Except in pandemics. They did much the same during the East African ebola outbreak, they can now control it with ring vaccination
I googled timeline of Ebola vaccine.
"The period of 5 years from the start of Phase 1 trials in Oct 2014 to the approval of this vaccine in Nov 2019, was much faster than the typical 10–15 year timeline for vaccine development and approval4. A timeline of the key activities in the development of this Ebola vaccine is summarized in Fig."
Because the whole world didn't drop everything and prioritise Ebola.
Exactly. We rushed it.
Which steps were abbreviated or missed out, in the process of producing the COVID vaccines? Put up or....
No idea. Ask the scientists who have been involved and who have trumpeted the unprecedented speed of the vaccine effort. Consider also the usual vaccine development timeframe of 10-15 years and the accelerated Ebola vaccine timeframe of five years.
Labour has said the government should end the consideration of academic qualifications for civil service jobs apart from where directly related to the post, to end the “snobbery” over degrees.
Labour’s deputy leader, Angela Rayner, said degrees and A-levels should only be taken into account where they are a genuine occupational requirement, such as science qualifications.
So twenty years of pushing degrees as an end in themselves (notionally to develop an educated workforce well placed for the workforce of the future) with costs increasingly passed on to students who pursue them (starting right from the initial £1,000 fees back in 1998) on the basis of the “lifetime graduate premium”, and now all to be treated equally because it’s all “snobbery”!
Isn't that much the same perennial argument that we see here, that many degrees are pointless and no substitute for on the job training? That they are just an entrance ticket to a white collar career?
Glad to see her make the case.
Civil Service has always had entry level jobs and “on the job” training.
The problem is not that people decide they dont want the vaccine, thats a choice and the libertarian in me wouldnt like compulsion, especially since voluntary uptake is very high
The problem with some refusniks is the why. I know one person who has rejected it and they are into the wider Looney Toon movement, that believes Trump was due to retake power about 3 times since January and so on. The maddening nature of it is its zealotry, a kind of direct inverse to the politicised madness masquerading as science of Independent Sage.
No attempt to elicit sensible consideration is possible.
Which was the point I was making. There are sane (albeit some would argue essentially selfish, and probably scientifically illiterate) reasons for being against getting vaccinated. But there are plenty of totally batshit insane reasons for being an anti-vaxxer. Probably the balance skews towards the former in this country (I hope), but almost certainly not in America where up to a quarter of the population appear to essentially now be in a self perpetuating cult.
Of course but so what? You can't pick and choose people's motivation. That way George Orwell lies.
Yes, you can pick and choose motivations. Pop into your local magistrates court to see that on a daily basis. "Intent" and all that.
Sure but we're talking about doing something legal. Refusing a vaccine.
Edit: although slightly scary that you appear to be moving towards equating vaccine refusal with committing a crime.
I respect people's right not to get vaccinated, but equally such people should also not expect society to do anything whatsoever to stop the spread of Covid. Fully packed nightclubs and gigs with thousands of people in enclosed spaces included, with no testing before or after.
I quizzed my family and my mum had one friend who refused who was in her early 70s, seemingly because she is into alternative medicine nonsense. I'm not sure all anti-vaxers realise the risk they are exposing themselves to when we let things loose.
The more people refuse the vaccine the longer we have restrictions and masks and "test first before entry".
Not if we just say enough is enough and those who have refused the vaccine have accepted the greater risk. We already have far higher vaccine take-up than many other countries will ever reach and there is still no shortage of demand. We'll blast past 85% of adults soon and probably crawl our way to 90% thereafter.
Once we are there we should have no more compulsory testing, restrictions or mask wearing outside of clinical conditions or places such as care homes.
I'd have thought, as a liberal, you'd appreciate the need to remove these measures as soon as everyone has had the chance to be vaccinated.
Labour has said the government should end the consideration of academic qualifications for civil service jobs apart from where directly related to the post, to end the “snobbery” over degrees.
Labour’s deputy leader, Angela Rayner, said degrees and A-levels should only be taken into account where they are a genuine occupational requirement, such as science qualifications.
So twenty years of pushing degrees as an end in themselves (notionally to develop an educated workforce well placed for the workforce of the future) with costs increasingly passed on to students who pursue them (starting right from the initial £1,000 fees back in 1998) on the basis of the “lifetime graduate premium”, and now all to be treated equally because it’s all “snobbery”!
Isn't that much the same perennial argument that we see here, that many degrees are pointless and no substitute for on the job training? That they are just an entrance ticket to a white collar career?
Glad to see her make the case.
Except her solution is baby out with the bathwater....to mandidate you shouldn't take into account say a candidate got a double first from Cambridge in English is stupid.
That's quite different from saying we are opening a track into entry level.positions where a degree isn't automatically required and lots of training will be given is a different kettle of fish.
Okay team I think you've got my point. This vaccine was rushed. Everyone saying oh it wasn't vaccines have been around for ages it's just that the approval process was truncated or it was just emergency authorisation or ..
The people who developed and authorised it have been proudly proclaiming how quick the process has been.
But whatever...it's a small step from there to say, as plenty are on here right now, that it should be compulsory.
And still you don't get it.
Your opinion is that it was rushed, but while it has been done swiftly, precisely zero corners have been cut with regard to safety. What has not been done, in your opinion? How long ‘should’ it take?
No idea.
I just googled vaccine trial length and the first result has this to start:
"Vaccine development is a long, complex process, often lasting 10-15 years and involving a combination of public and private involvement."
Except in pandemics. They did much the same during the East African ebola outbreak, they can now control it with ring vaccination
I googled timeline of Ebola vaccine.
"The period of 5 years from the start of Phase 1 trials in Oct 2014 to the approval of this vaccine in Nov 2019, was much faster than the typical 10–15 year timeline for vaccine development and approval4. A timeline of the key activities in the development of this Ebola vaccine is summarized in Fig."
They didn’t exactly have an enormous pool of people in which to test and measure the effectiveness of Ebola vaccines. And you’re hardly going to get volunteers willing to be infected with “mild” forms of the virus to speed it up further.
Yes I'm sure. At least you're now accepting that the vaccine was new and they did most of the trials in the real world with us lot.
The vaccine had the same trials that a vaccine would normally have.
So what's all this rubbish about usual vaccine timeframes of 10-15 years? Slackers.
It would make an interesting PB poll of an evening:
How many of us know how many anti-vaxxers in our immediate circle?
I'm talking about immediate family members, perhaps as distant as close cousins, and good personal friends (people you can talk freely with over a drink)
I have two anti-vaxxers
One very close friend
And a sibling
Out of a total of about 30?
Anyone else?
My son, and possibly daughter in law are refusing. I do not discuss it with them any more. My son is very intelligent, has a 6 figure salary,and is getting grief from his workmates, but is adamant he will not get the jab, no point discussing as he is as stubborn as me.
My niece and her husband 40s and neighbours 70s both absolutely anti jab, even though my nieces family have all had Covid19 pretty nastily.
Can imagine the caterwauling we'd get the first time some Unionist nut decided to torch an SNP politician's house. Still, one rule for one lot, a different rule for the other lot, eh?
It's nothing to do with politics you dimwit.
'The Conservatives have blamed organised crime for the "disgusting" attack.'
Ouch! That's embarrassing. Next time read source material properly...
He has absolutely nailed it here. Describes almost every avid Remainer I know (as in know on the internet)
"Here in Britain, Labour is lumped in with a “big blob” of its own. Too often a loud part of that blob sounds like either a select priesthood, speaking to itself about questions that would strike most people as abstract angels-on-a-pinhead theology, or a self-appointed police force dispensing constant, scolding judgment, wagging its finger at the latest supposed infraction of progressive standards. It’s exhausting and so unappealing that even a serially dishonest and incompetent government – but one that seems to accept you, your country and your way of life without pursed-lipped judgment – seems preferable by comparison."
Reading the grauniad comments I am struck by the wide division between those who accept the article has validity and those who absolutely refuse their reality. It rather makes Mr. Freedlands point for him.
There was a similar article in Unherd a couple of days ago, which concluded with a similar point: People will often put up with being ruled by people who cheat them, or lie to them, or who mismanage the country - as recent polls illustrate. But they won't put up with being ruled by people who openly despise them. https://unherd.com/2021/06/the-self-loathing-of-britains-elites/
Yes, I think that does explain the C and A result, people won't vote for those that despise them.
The C&A result is an ancient type of byelection result, with little evidence that it is about being despised and loads of evidence that it's about how to vote at byelections. Massive anti governments swings are common where the circumstances are right, and are usually altered back over time or by the next election. The new trend is the government winning against the opposition. The Tories are in with a chance (less chance than the bookies say) with this yet again.
The collapse of the non big urban (London) blue wall is massively overstated. Look at the map as a whole rather than a few interesting cases.
Freedland is excellent but still manages to take for granted that Labour is the right answer to the progressive cause. Maybe it isn't. Maybe the Tories are the most progressive party around.
If Labour stood where the Tories stand about the aspirational middling sort I would vote for them in GEs as I do in local elections. But nationally they are a crowd of uncommunicating enclaves of special interest groups who patronise people like me.
The Tories aren't progressive. And that isn't what the WWC red wallers want. They actively sought and voted for regressive politics. They're not booing the England team taking the knee because they want progressive politics.
Nice try, but you may be making some assumptions about what progress is about that aren't shared by the middling sort. Some people think virtue signalling is never progressive, but helping and supporting people is.
So what help and support for the victims of racism do the boo-ers engage in?
If you believe blm is divisive and does more to promote racial disharmony than the problems it purports to fix then showing your contempt for it is the positive thing to do.
Before you whine on about taking the knee isn't connected to blm remember people like you claim the england flag is associated with racism because people like the bnp use it. BLM use taking the knee...it is therefore tainted by those arses
I don't think the English flag racist and often fly it during tournaments. I just respect the English players too in their statements about racist abuse.
I would be grateful if you would not misrepresent my views on these things. It doesn't help discussion when you attribute to me beliefs that I do not hold.
I did not say you specifically I said people like you meaning the progressive left and sorry yes a lot of them do regard the english flag as racist.
It would make an interesting PB poll of an evening:
How many of us know how many anti-vaxxers in our immediate circle?
I'm talking about immediate family members, perhaps as distant as close cousins, and good personal friends (people you can talk freely with over a drink)
I have two anti-vaxxers
One very close friend
And a sibling
Out of a total of about 30?
Anyone else?
None for me. Although I know a few womenfolk who are a bit scared of the vaccines.
On PB itself, I believe the only two antivaxxers are Contrarian and Dura Ace.
None here. I know a few dozen people well enough to expect that I'd have heard if they were not taking it - most have reported with glee when they did get it. My wider mailing list of a few thousand haven't raised it as a concern, though I don't hear from most of them regularly.
I think that the anti-vaxxers are more likely to make themselves heard - like contrarian, they feel they're standing up for a principle. Most people just have the jab when they're invited to do so, and see nothing special to boast about.
Okay team I think you've got my point. This vaccine was rushed. Everyone saying oh it wasn't vaccines have been around for ages it's just that the approval process was truncated or it was just emergency authorisation or ..
The people who developed and authorised it have been proudly proclaiming how quick the process has been.
But whatever...it's a small step from there to say, as plenty are on here right now, that it should be compulsory.
And still you don't get it.
Your opinion is that it was rushed, but while it has been done swiftly, precisely zero corners have been cut with regard to safety. What has not been done, in your opinion? How long ‘should’ it take?
No idea.
I just googled vaccine trial length and the first result has this to start:
"Vaccine development is a long, complex process, often lasting 10-15 years and involving a combination of public and private involvement."
Except in pandemics. They did much the same during the East African ebola outbreak, they can now control it with ring vaccination
I googled timeline of Ebola vaccine.
"The period of 5 years from the start of Phase 1 trials in Oct 2014 to the approval of this vaccine in Nov 2019, was much faster than the typical 10–15 year timeline for vaccine development and approval4. A timeline of the key activities in the development of this Ebola vaccine is summarized in Fig."
They didn’t exactly have an enormous pool of people in which to test and measure the effectiveness of Ebola vaccines. And you’re hardly going to get volunteers willing to be infected with “mild” forms of the virus to speed it up further.
Yes I'm sure. At least you're now accepting that the vaccine was new and they did most of the trials in the real world with us lot.
The vaccine had the same trials that a vaccine would normally have.
So what's all this rubbish about usual vaccine timeframes of 10-15 years? Slackers.
You're not normally vaccinating against a disease that is infecting a very high proportion of the population. Trials need data, and Covid was kind enough to infect a large proportion of trial participants in a short space of time.
He has absolutely nailed it here. Describes almost every avid Remainer I know (as in know on the internet)
"Here in Britain, Labour is lumped in with a “big blob” of its own. Too often a loud part of that blob sounds like either a select priesthood, speaking to itself about questions that would strike most people as abstract angels-on-a-pinhead theology, or a self-appointed police force dispensing constant, scolding judgment, wagging its finger at the latest supposed infraction of progressive standards. It’s exhausting and so unappealing that even a serially dishonest and incompetent government – but one that seems to accept you, your country and your way of life without pursed-lipped judgment – seems preferable by comparison."
Reading the grauniad comments I am struck by the wide division between those who accept the article has validity and those who absolutely refuse their reality. It rather makes Mr. Freedlands point for him.
There was a similar article in Unherd a couple of days ago, which concluded with a similar point: People will often put up with being ruled by people who cheat them, or lie to them, or who mismanage the country - as recent polls illustrate. But they won't put up with being ruled by people who openly despise them. https://unherd.com/2021/06/the-self-loathing-of-britains-elites/
Yes, I think that does explain the C and A result, people won't vote for those that despise them.
The C&A result is an ancient type of byelection result, with little evidence that it is about being despised and loads of evidence that it's about how to vote at byelections. Massive anti governments swings are common where the circumstances are right, and are usually altered back over time or by the next election. The new trend is the government winning against the opposition. The Tories are in with a chance (less chance than the bookies say) with this yet again.
The collapse of the non big urban (London) blue wall is massively overstated. Look at the map as a whole rather than a few interesting cases.
Freedland is excellent but still manages to take for granted that Labour is the right answer to the progressive cause. Maybe it isn't. Maybe the Tories are the most progressive party around.
If Labour stood where the Tories stand about the aspirational middling sort I would vote for them in GEs as I do in local elections. But nationally they are a crowd of uncommunicating enclaves of special interest groups who patronise people like me.
The Tories aren't progressive. And that isn't what the WWC red wallers want. They actively sought and voted for regressive politics. They're not booing the England team taking the knee because they want progressive politics.
Nice try, but you may be making some assumptions about what progress is about that aren't shared by the middling sort. Some people think virtue signalling is never progressive, but helping and supporting people is.
So what help and support for the victims of racism do the boo-ers engage in?
If you believe blm is divisive and does more to promote racial disharmony than the problems it purports to fix then showing your contempt for it is the positive thing to do.
Before you whine on about taking the knee isn't connected to blm remember people like you claim the england flag is associated with racism because people like the bnp use it. BLM use taking the knee...it is therefore tainted by those arses
I don't think the English flag racist and often fly it during tournaments. I just respect the English players too in their statements about racist abuse.
I would be grateful if you would not misrepresent my views on these things. It doesn't help discussion when you attribute to me beliefs that I do not hold.
I did not say you specifically I said people like you meaning the progressive left and sorry yes a lot of them do regard the english flag as racist.
Certainly not me, nor the many England fans who applaud the the knee. I don't think England fans are more racist than others, indeed the opposite. It is much more of an issue in other countries. Clearly it is still a problem for our players though.
Okay team I think you've got my point. This vaccine was rushed. Everyone saying oh it wasn't vaccines have been around for ages it's just that the approval process was truncated or it was just emergency authorisation or ..
The people who developed and authorised it have been proudly proclaiming how quick the process has been.
But whatever...it's a small step from there to say, as plenty are on here right now, that it should be compulsory.
And still you don't get it.
Speeded up, rather than rushed.
Processes of paperwork that usually happen in series, were done in parallel with huge teams from both the manufacturers and regulators, especially in the US and UK.
Okay team I think you've got my point. This vaccine was rushed. Everyone saying oh it wasn't vaccines have been around for ages it's just that the approval process was truncated or it was just emergency authorisation or ..
The people who developed and authorised it have been proudly proclaiming how quick the process has been.
But whatever...it's a small step from there to say, as plenty are on here right now, that it should be compulsory.
And still you don't get it.
Your opinion is that it was rushed, but while it has been done swiftly, precisely zero corners have been cut with regard to safety. What has not been done, in your opinion? How long ‘should’ it take?
No idea.
I just googled vaccine trial length and the first result has this to start:
"Vaccine development is a long, complex process, often lasting 10-15 years and involving a combination of public and private involvement."
Except in pandemics. They did much the same during the East African ebola outbreak, they can now control it with ring vaccination
I googled timeline of Ebola vaccine.
"The period of 5 years from the start of Phase 1 trials in Oct 2014 to the approval of this vaccine in Nov 2019, was much faster than the typical 10–15 year timeline for vaccine development and approval4. A timeline of the key activities in the development of this Ebola vaccine is summarized in Fig."
They didn’t exactly have an enormous pool of people in which to test and measure the effectiveness of Ebola vaccines. And you’re hardly going to get volunteers willing to be infected with “mild” forms of the virus to speed it up further.
Yes I'm sure. At least you're now accepting that the vaccine was new and they did most of the trials in the real world with us lot.
The vaccine had the same trials that a vaccine would normally have.
So what's all this rubbish about usual vaccine timeframes of 10-15 years? Slackers.
Covid vaccines could be developed at breakneck speed largely because essentially unlimited amounts of money were thrown at them. Most diseases aren't regarded with such urgency - especially not those mostly afflicting poor people, of course.
It’s a bit like driving across a busy city in rush hour. Normally you spend lots of time waiting at traffic lights, but when you have a police escort, you can take the same journey and get to the same place, just as safely, but faster.
The result has been faster vaccine development than we’ve ever seen, but without cutting back on testing and safety measures.
A friend of mine has just texted me to say he's been on the phone with his middle aged, eccentric, arty but generally sane sister who spent half an hour "shouting and crying and demanding he refuse the vaccine"
A week ago a friend told me her brother in law (husband's brother) spent the entirety of a supper party in wrenching sobs because "my whole family is going to die from the jabs"
Where the fuck does this stuff come from, and why is it so tenacious?!
A significant chunk of the anti-vax stuff comes from Russian troll farms.
What do the Russian trolls stand to gain from this?
Half a million Russians are dead due to this pandemic. Why is a pandemic spreading and vaccines being refused good for Russia? Are they seeking to wipe out the elderly on purpose?
So, do you remember a few days ago there was a new PB user who came on to spread a story about how BA pilots were all dying of the vaccine?
Well as site moderator, I get to see IP addresses. When I stuck in the IP address of that poster it was kicked out as an Amazon EC2 instance. I see two possibilities:
(1) That he was an Amazon employee (2) That it was someone attempting to hide their real IP
I find it curious that someone pushing a story that is clearly utter bullshit, and designed to increase vaccine hesitancy, chose to hide their real IP.
Now, it could be the North Koreans or the Chinese. But so far, the biggest players in the "disrupt Western democracy" space are the Russians.
There's a lot of decent academic evidence looking at Bot Farms and their attempts to amplify certain messages. Some amplify antivax. Some amplify BLM propaganda. Some amplify Proud Boys stuff.
The goal is a simple one, to sow discord in Western democracies. And how does China or Russia benefit? Well, because we're all fighting among ourselves, we don't do a great job of standing up to their aggressions elsewhere.
It's no coincindence that China and Russia basically ban Twitter and the like. They want to make sure that they control social media platforms, so people can't do the same to them.
At the peak of the BLM hysteria you could SEE the Russian and Chinese bots at work: new accounts with zero or near zero followers, throwing in the most hysterical arguments - from both sides - inflammatory "facts" and "opinions" which would then get taken up by legitimate users and often turned into massive rows with real-life consequences
They have weaponised social media against us. It's a serious danger
However it only succeeds where gullible people exist to believe it and then spread it. Useful idiots I think is the correct term.
It is far far more sophisticated that that. A lot of this is extremely high level of propoganda of the sort which led to a third of pre war Germany supporting Hitler. Or the cult of Trump. Or...
It can’t simply be put down to the gullible and “useful idiots”. A lot of these people only get sucked in because they start off sceptical but start doing their own “research”. And find there’s a whole industry out there designed to reinforce the original far fetched theories with whole independent areas of “information” to win people over through sheer volumes of evidence that “can’t be easily dismissed”
Labour has said the government should end the consideration of academic qualifications for civil service jobs apart from where directly related to the post, to end the “snobbery” over degrees.
Labour’s deputy leader, Angela Rayner, said degrees and A-levels should only be taken into account where they are a genuine occupational requirement, such as science qualifications.
The civil service doesn't ask candidates to say what university they went to - they think all degrees are equal. So they might as well not care about degrees at all, in my opinion.
Polls have closed in the Armenia election and don't forget Bulgaria has its second GE this year in three weeks.
The final Armenian poll gave the opposition Armenia Alliance a slight lead over the My Step Alliance headed by Prime Minister Pashinyan's Civil Contract Party.
The Prime Minister is in big trouble following the conflict with Azerbaijan which ended badly for Armenia with the country having to relinquish most of the territory gained from Azerbaijan in the 1994 conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh.
French regionals today too. The results so far look disappointing for all of Le Pen, Marcon and the left - the big winners are the moderate conservatives (Ligue Republicain). Turnout well down on the usual.
Labour has said the government should end the consideration of academic qualifications for civil service jobs apart from where directly related to the post, to end the “snobbery” over degrees.
Labour’s deputy leader, Angela Rayner, said degrees and A-levels should only be taken into account where they are a genuine occupational requirement, such as science qualifications.
So twenty years of pushing degrees as an end in themselves (notionally to develop an educated workforce well placed for the workforce of the future) with costs increasingly passed on to students who pursue them (starting right from the initial £1,000 fees back in 1998) on the basis of the “lifetime graduate premium”, and now all to be treated equally because it’s all “snobbery”!
Isn't that much the same perennial argument that we see here, that many degrees are pointless and no substitute for on the job training? That they are just an entrance ticket to a white collar career?
Glad to see her make the case.
Civil Service has always had entry level jobs and “on the job” training.
Yes, but the Fast Stream (the officer class of the Civil Service) is recruited by examination. There is no need to require a degree, just a good score.
Let me change that slightly and see how it makes you feel.
'Sorry but much of this is self-inflicted. Talk to people who work in primary schools in majority black or Bangladeshi areas at the absolute pond scum that kids have as parents. Some of them are thick and poor because they make themselves so.'
Does that apply or is it verboten because minorities are involved?
It doesn't apply because it isn't true. As I said, ethnicity isn't the issue. Not giving a fuck is the issue. We aren't talking about people in areas where work is scarce or miles away. We're talking about decent jobs that certain parts of the WWC won't do and then get arsey when other people are brought in to fill the roles.
The turnaround in politics is that this demographic has swung massively Tory. The days of Tory cabinet ministers giving conference speeches slagging off single mothers or multi-generational unemployment in areas where they smashed industry are long past.
Every population has its sections that claim to be hard done by. The reasons may differ but the whinging tone is the same, its always someone or something else, immigrants, white privilege and so on.
Barriers can be got over, if it takes more work than average so be it, but unfortunately there are too many of the 'privileged' that support the claims of those that claim to be hard done by because of someone or something else. Why bother trying when you are being told its always something else responsible for your lack of achievement?
Okay team I think you've got my point. This vaccine was rushed. Everyone saying oh it wasn't vaccines have been around for ages it's just that the approval process was truncated or it was just emergency authorisation or ..
The people who developed and authorised it have been proudly proclaiming how quick the process has been.
But whatever...it's a small step from there to say, as plenty are on here right now, that it should be compulsory.
And still you don't get it.
Your opinion is that it was rushed, but while it has been done swiftly, precisely zero corners have been cut with regard to safety. What has not been done, in your opinion? How long ‘should’ it take?
No idea.
I just googled vaccine trial length and the first result has this to start:
"Vaccine development is a long, complex process, often lasting 10-15 years and involving a combination of public and private involvement."
Except in pandemics. They did much the same during the East African ebola outbreak, they can now control it with ring vaccination
I googled timeline of Ebola vaccine.
"The period of 5 years from the start of Phase 1 trials in Oct 2014 to the approval of this vaccine in Nov 2019, was much faster than the typical 10–15 year timeline for vaccine development and approval4. A timeline of the key activities in the development of this Ebola vaccine is summarized in Fig."
Because the whole world didn't drop everything and prioritise Ebola.
Exactly. We rushed it.
Which steps were abbreviated or missed out, in the process of producing the COVID vaccines? Put up or....
No idea. Ask the scientists who have been involved and who have trumpeted the unprecedented speed of the vaccine effort. Consider also the usual vaccine development timeframe of 10-15 years and the accelerated Ebola vaccine timeframe of five years.
So, shit posting. Got it.
If you are interested in facts, there are plenty of examples of shortening schedules, without ignoring steps, by orders of magnitude, in various fields.
It's remarkable what you can do, when you tell the committee to select the biscuits for the committee meeting to decide on who should chair the meeting on deciding something worthwhile.... to go jump in a lake.
Labour has said the government should end the consideration of academic qualifications for civil service jobs apart from where directly related to the post, to end the “snobbery” over degrees.
Labour’s deputy leader, Angela Rayner, said degrees and A-levels should only be taken into account where they are a genuine occupational requirement, such as science qualifications.
So twenty years of pushing degrees as an end in themselves (notionally to develop an educated workforce well placed for the workforce of the future) with costs increasingly passed on to students who pursue them (starting right from the initial £1,000 fees back in 1998) on the basis of the “lifetime graduate premium”, and now all to be treated equally because it’s all “snobbery”!
Isn't that much the same perennial argument that we see here, that many degrees are pointless and no substitute for on the job training? That they are just an entrance ticket to a white collar career?
Glad to see her make the case.
Except her solution is baby out with the bathwater....to mandidate you shouldn't take into account say a candidate got a double first from Cambridge in English is stupid.
That's quite different from saying we are opening a track into entry level.positions where a degree isn't automatically required and lots of training will be given is a different kettle of fish.
It is the middle-class finishing school argument. Why should an English degree count for more or less than a Geography degree, if neither is needed for the job? At best, it is a proxy for intelligence or dedication. (The funny thing is that these arguments lurch from right to left wing and back again.)
Okay team I think you've got my point. This vaccine was rushed. Everyone saying oh it wasn't vaccines have been around for ages it's just that the approval process was truncated or it was just emergency authorisation or ..
The people who developed and authorised it have been proudly proclaiming how quick the process has been.
But whatever...it's a small step from there to say, as plenty are on here right now, that it should be compulsory.
And still you don't get it.
Your opinion is that it was rushed, but while it has been done swiftly, precisely zero corners have been cut with regard to safety. What has not been done, in your opinion? How long ‘should’ it take?
No idea.
I just googled vaccine trial length and the first result has this to start:
"Vaccine development is a long, complex process, often lasting 10-15 years and involving a combination of public and private involvement."
Except in pandemics. They did much the same during the East African ebola outbreak, they can now control it with ring vaccination
I googled timeline of Ebola vaccine.
"The period of 5 years from the start of Phase 1 trials in Oct 2014 to the approval of this vaccine in Nov 2019, was much faster than the typical 10–15 year timeline for vaccine development and approval4. A timeline of the key activities in the development of this Ebola vaccine is summarized in Fig."
They didn’t exactly have an enormous pool of people in which to test and measure the effectiveness of Ebola vaccines. And you’re hardly going to get volunteers willing to be infected with “mild” forms of the virus to speed it up further.
Yes I'm sure. At least you're now accepting that the vaccine was new and they did most of the trials in the real world with us lot.
The vaccine had the same trials that a vaccine would normally have.
So what's all this rubbish about usual vaccine timeframes of 10-15 years? Slackers.
The usual timeframe involves doing steps in sequence and stopping to fundraise between steps.
This timeframe involved doing steps in parallel with money no object and no stops for fundraising.
I see you haven't bothered to read it. It is a fairly concise explanation of how the schedule was accelerated without leaving out steps. Parallel, rather than waterfall, basically.
Okay team I think you've got my point. This vaccine was rushed. Everyone saying oh it wasn't vaccines have been around for ages it's just that the approval process was truncated or it was just emergency authorisation or ..
The people who developed and authorised it have been proudly proclaiming how quick the process has been.
But whatever...it's a small step from there to say, as plenty are on here right now, that it should be compulsory.
And still you don't get it.
Your opinion is that it was rushed, but while it has been done swiftly, precisely zero corners have been cut with regard to safety. What has not been done, in your opinion? How long ‘should’ it take?
No idea.
I just googled vaccine trial length and the first result has this to start:
"Vaccine development is a long, complex process, often lasting 10-15 years and involving a combination of public and private involvement."
Except in pandemics. They did much the same during the East African ebola outbreak, they can now control it with ring vaccination
I googled timeline of Ebola vaccine.
"The period of 5 years from the start of Phase 1 trials in Oct 2014 to the approval of this vaccine in Nov 2019, was much faster than the typical 10–15 year timeline for vaccine development and approval4. A timeline of the key activities in the development of this Ebola vaccine is summarized in Fig."
Because the whole world didn't drop everything and prioritise Ebola.
Exactly. We rushed it.
Which steps were abbreviated or missed out, in the process of producing the COVID vaccines? Put up or....
No idea. Ask the scientists who have been involved and who have trumpeted the unprecedented speed of the vaccine effort. Consider also the usual vaccine development timeframe of 10-15 years and the accelerated Ebola vaccine timeframe of five years.
So, shit posting. Got it.
If you are interested in facts, there are plenty of examples of shortening schedules, without ignoring steps, by orders of magnitude, in various fields.
It's remarkable what you can do, when you tell the committee to select the biscuits for the committee meeting to decide on who should chair the meeting on deciding something worthwhile.... to go jump in a lake.
I guess we rushed the development of the Spitfire.
Okay team I think you've got my point. This vaccine was rushed. Everyone saying oh it wasn't vaccines have been around for ages it's just that the approval process was truncated or it was just emergency authorisation or ..
The people who developed and authorised it have been proudly proclaiming how quick the process has been.
But whatever...it's a small step from there to say, as plenty are on here right now, that it should be compulsory.
And still you don't get it.
Your opinion is that it was rushed, but while it has been done swiftly, precisely zero corners have been cut with regard to safety. What has not been done, in your opinion? How long ‘should’ it take?
No idea.
I just googled vaccine trial length and the first result has this to start:
"Vaccine development is a long, complex process, often lasting 10-15 years and involving a combination of public and private involvement."
Except in pandemics. They did much the same during the East African ebola outbreak, they can now control it with ring vaccination
I googled timeline of Ebola vaccine.
"The period of 5 years from the start of Phase 1 trials in Oct 2014 to the approval of this vaccine in Nov 2019, was much faster than the typical 10–15 year timeline for vaccine development and approval4. A timeline of the key activities in the development of this Ebola vaccine is summarized in Fig."
Because the whole world didn't drop everything and prioritise Ebola.
Exactly. We rushed it.
Which steps were abbreviated or missed out, in the process of producing the COVID vaccines? Put up or....
No idea. Ask the scientists who have been involved and who have trumpeted the unprecedented speed of the vaccine effort. Consider also the usual vaccine development timeframe of 10-15 years and the accelerated Ebola vaccine timeframe of five years.
So, shit posting. Got it.
If you are interested in facts, there are plenty of examples of shortening schedules, without ignoring steps, by orders of magnitude, in various fields.
It's remarkable what you can do, when you tell the committee to select the biscuits for the committee meeting to decide on who should chair the meeting on deciding something worthwhile.... to go jump in a lake.
Labour has said the government should end the consideration of academic qualifications for civil service jobs apart from where directly related to the post, to end the “snobbery” over degrees.
Labour’s deputy leader, Angela Rayner, said degrees and A-levels should only be taken into account where they are a genuine occupational requirement, such as science qualifications.
So twenty years of pushing degrees as an end in themselves (notionally to develop an educated workforce well placed for the workforce of the future) with costs increasingly passed on to students who pursue them (starting right from the initial £1,000 fees back in 1998) on the basis of the “lifetime graduate premium”, and now all to be treated equally because it’s all “snobbery”!
Isn't that much the same perennial argument that we see here, that many degrees are pointless and no substitute for on the job training? That they are just an entrance ticket to a white collar career?
Glad to see her make the case.
Civil Service has always had entry level jobs and “on the job” training.
Yes, but the Fast Stream (the officer class of the Civil Service) is recruited by examination. There is no need to require a degree, just a good score.
It’s a bit like driving across a busy city in rush hour. Normally you spend lots of time waiting at traffic lights, but when you have a police escort, you can take the same journey and get to the same place, just as safely, but faster.
The result has been faster vaccine development than we’ve ever seen, but without cutting back on testing and safety measures.
Brilliant. They rushed it and it's all safe and we should all be happy.
Okay team I think you've got my point. This vaccine was rushed. Everyone saying oh it wasn't vaccines have been around for ages it's just that the approval process was truncated or it was just emergency authorisation or ..
The people who developed and authorised it have been proudly proclaiming how quick the process has been.
But whatever...it's a small step from there to say, as plenty are on here right now, that it should be compulsory.
And still you don't get it.
Your opinion is that it was rushed, but while it has been done swiftly, precisely zero corners have been cut with regard to safety. What has not been done, in your opinion? How long ‘should’ it take?
No idea.
I just googled vaccine trial length and the first result has this to start:
"Vaccine development is a long, complex process, often lasting 10-15 years and involving a combination of public and private involvement."
Except in pandemics. They did much the same during the East African ebola outbreak, they can now control it with ring vaccination
I googled timeline of Ebola vaccine.
"The period of 5 years from the start of Phase 1 trials in Oct 2014 to the approval of this vaccine in Nov 2019, was much faster than the typical 10–15 year timeline for vaccine development and approval4. A timeline of the key activities in the development of this Ebola vaccine is summarized in Fig."
Because the whole world didn't drop everything and prioritise Ebola.
Exactly. We rushed it.
Which steps were abbreviated or missed out, in the process of producing the COVID vaccines? Put up or....
No idea. Ask the scientists who have been involved and who have trumpeted the unprecedented speed of the vaccine effort. Consider also the usual vaccine development timeframe of 10-15 years and the accelerated Ebola vaccine timeframe of five years.
So, shit posting. Got it.
If you are interested in facts, there are plenty of examples of shortening schedules, without ignoring steps, by orders of magnitude, in various fields.
It's remarkable what you can do, when you tell the committee to select the biscuits for the committee meeting to decide on who should chair the meeting on deciding something worthwhile.... to go jump in a lake.
I guess we rushed the development of the Spitfire.
Okay team I think you've got my point. This vaccine was rushed. Everyone saying oh it wasn't vaccines have been around for ages it's just that the approval process was truncated or it was just emergency authorisation or ..
The people who developed and authorised it have been proudly proclaiming how quick the process has been.
But whatever...it's a small step from there to say, as plenty are on here right now, that it should be compulsory.
And still you don't get it.
Your opinion is that it was rushed, but while it has been done swiftly, precisely zero corners have been cut with regard to safety. What has not been done, in your opinion? How long ‘should’ it take?
No idea.
I just googled vaccine trial length and the first result has this to start:
"Vaccine development is a long, complex process, often lasting 10-15 years and involving a combination of public and private involvement."
Except in pandemics. They did much the same during the East African ebola outbreak, they can now control it with ring vaccination
I googled timeline of Ebola vaccine.
"The period of 5 years from the start of Phase 1 trials in Oct 2014 to the approval of this vaccine in Nov 2019, was much faster than the typical 10–15 year timeline for vaccine development and approval4. A timeline of the key activities in the development of this Ebola vaccine is summarized in Fig."
Because the whole world didn't drop everything and prioritise Ebola.
Exactly. We rushed it.
Which steps were abbreviated or missed out, in the process of producing the COVID vaccines? Put up or....
No idea. Ask the scientists who have been involved and who have trumpeted the unprecedented speed of the vaccine effort. Consider also the usual vaccine development timeframe of 10-15 years and the accelerated Ebola vaccine timeframe of five years.
So, shit posting. Got it.
If you are interested in facts, there are plenty of examples of shortening schedules, without ignoring steps, by orders of magnitude, in various fields.
It's remarkable what you can do, when you tell the committee to select the biscuits for the committee meeting to decide on who should chair the meeting on deciding something worthwhile.... to go jump in a lake.
I guess we rushed the development of the Spitfire.
Actually, we did. Quite deliberately. Which is why the P-51 was cheaper to build, had better load/stability parameters and superior aerodynamics in many respects.
The Spitfire was a very, very rushed job to build a 350mph rapid climb, point interceptor, when it became clear that war might start before 1941 and the arrival of the planned 400mph+ fighters.
Well at least we have got rid of the "we didn't rush the vaccine" posts.
We can all agree that it was rushed. Or rather, it was on a shortened schedule. Happy to use that term in future if it helps keep the blood pressure down.
Labour has said the government should end the consideration of academic qualifications for civil service jobs apart from where directly related to the post, to end the “snobbery” over degrees.
Labour’s deputy leader, Angela Rayner, said degrees and A-levels should only be taken into account where they are a genuine occupational requirement, such as science qualifications.
The civil service doesn't ask candidates to say what university they went to - they think all degrees are equal. So they might as well not care about degrees at all, in my opinion.
Damn having to agree with Angela Rayner, even if only occasionally.
It’s certainly true that the economics of a degree vs earnings potential no longer hold for a lot of degrees at a lot of universities, and that people should think carefully about not spending three or four years getting drunk and in £50k of debt, unless they dramatically improve their career prospects as a result. Removing degree mandates for the CS and many public-sector roles (nursing and police spring to mind) is a good starting point.
Labour has said the government should end the consideration of academic qualifications for civil service jobs apart from where directly related to the post, to end the “snobbery” over degrees.
Labour’s deputy leader, Angela Rayner, said degrees and A-levels should only be taken into account where they are a genuine occupational requirement, such as science qualifications.
The civil service doesn't ask candidates to say what university they went to - they think all degrees are equal. So they might as well not care about degrees at all, in my opinion.
All degrees are equal, mutatis mutandis. What an Oxbridge degree tells you is that its holder managed to get into Oxbridge. And because getting into Oxbridge is difficult, that can be useful information. But it does not mean that Oxbridge has a better value of pi than Hull.
Labour has said the government should end the consideration of academic qualifications for civil service jobs apart from where directly related to the post, to end the “snobbery” over degrees.
Labour’s deputy leader, Angela Rayner, said degrees and A-levels should only be taken into account where they are a genuine occupational requirement, such as science qualifications.
So twenty years of pushing degrees as an end in themselves (notionally to develop an educated workforce well placed for the workforce of the future) with costs increasingly passed on to students who pursue them (starting right from the initial £1,000 fees back in 1998) on the basis of the “lifetime graduate premium”, and now all to be treated equally because it’s all “snobbery”!
Isn't that much the same perennial argument that we see here, that many degrees are pointless and no substitute for on the job training? That they are just an entrance ticket to a white collar career?
Glad to see her make the case.
Except her solution is baby out with the bathwater....to mandidate you shouldn't take into account say a candidate got a double first from Cambridge in English is stupid.
That's quite different from saying we are opening a track into entry level.positions where a degree isn't automatically required and lots of training will be given is a different kettle of fish.
It is the middle-class finishing school argument. Why should an English degree count for more or less than a Geography degree, if neither is needed for the job? At best, it is a proxy for intelligence or dedication. (The funny thing is that these arguments lurch from right to left wing and back again.)
I would hope.people doing both of those types of degrees had learned some very valuable skills applicable to a wide range of jobs. Its not the be all and end all, but to graduate say top of your class in an established subject from a world class university requires a combination of intelligence and dedication. So to just say we don't consider that at all is ridiculous. It pertinent information.
The logical conclusion the other way is actually we only need about 20 universities who only teach STEM, because everything else is pointless, we just train everybody on the job at night school.
It’s a bit like driving across a busy city in rush hour. Normally you spend lots of time waiting at traffic lights, but when you have a police escort, you can take the same journey and get to the same place, just as safely, but faster.
The result has been faster vaccine development than we’ve ever seen, but without cutting back on testing and safety measures.
Brilliant. They rushed it and it's all safe and we should all be happy.
I'm not entirely sure why it is that you've chosen this particular hill to die on. The difference between a task being sped up by the allocation of extra resource and a task being done in haste seems quite clear.
If a machine is repaired in ten hours by one mechanic or in five hours by two, the end result isn't necessarily going to be any different. It's just going to be arrived at more rapidly in the latter instance, that's all.
Okay team I think you've got my point. This vaccine was rushed. Everyone saying oh it wasn't vaccines have been around for ages it's just that the approval process was truncated or it was just emergency authorisation or ..
The people who developed and authorised it have been proudly proclaiming how quick the process has been.
But whatever...it's a small step from there to say, as plenty are on here right now, that it should be compulsory.
And still you don't get it.
Your opinion is that it was rushed, but while it has been done swiftly, precisely zero corners have been cut with regard to safety. What has not been done, in your opinion? How long ‘should’ it take?
What I object to is your use of the word 'rushed', which in most cases is used to imply a trade-off between speed and quality/safety. In this case, I honestly don't think that was the case. There was an expedited process, not a rushed one.
Labour has said the government should end the consideration of academic qualifications for civil service jobs apart from where directly related to the post, to end the “snobbery” over degrees.
Labour’s deputy leader, Angela Rayner, said degrees and A-levels should only be taken into account where they are a genuine occupational requirement, such as science qualifications.
The civil service doesn't ask candidates to say what university they went to - they think all degrees are equal. So they might as well not care about degrees at all, in my opinion.
Damn having to agree with Angela Rayner, even if only occasionally.
It’s certainly true that the economics of a degree vs earnings potential no longer hold for a lot of degrees at a lot of universities, and that people should think carefully about not spending three or four years getting drunk and in £50k of debt, unless they dramatically improve their career prospects as a result. Removing degree mandates for the CS and many public-sector roles (nursing and police spring to mind) is a good starting point.
What's curious is that I suspect Rayner doesn't understand why Labour want 50% of kids to go to university. It's got f*** all to do with improving their lives and everything to do with creating jobs for left-wing academics.
Well at least we have got rid of the "we didn't rush the vaccine" posts.
We can all agree that it was rushed. Or rather, it was on a shortened schedule. Happy to use that term in future if it helps keep the blood pressure down.
OK so it was “rushed”. But without any compromise on safety. So people opposing taking the vaccines on the grounds of the former because they assume the latter cannot be true are misguided. And you will happy to strongly argue the case for taking the vaccines when you come across people with this misguided belief.
France went to the polls Sunday in the first round of regional elections, which are seen as a bellwether for next year’s all-important presidential contest but which largely failed to mobilise voters – polls estimated the abstention rate at more than 66 percent. Follow our liveblog below for results and analysis.
Les Républicains, the conservative party revamped by former president Nicolas Sarkozy, appear to be largely in the lead, ahead of both Marine Le Pen’s far-right National Rally (RN) and parties of the centre and left.
Exit polls showed Les Républicains beating Le Pen’s RN into second place in the northern Hauts-de-France region. President Emmanuel Macron’s ruling LREM (La République en marche) party is at risk of failing to reach the 10 percent threshold to qualify for the second round.
Le Pen’s National Rally led in the Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur region near Marseille, with the incumbent Les Républicains in second place, according to exit polls. Voters are also choosing councillors to run France’s more than 100 départements, another layer of local government.
The elections, which follow a gruelling year and a half of lockdowns and curfews, look set to be marred by record-low turnout of between 66 and 68 percent, according to polls. A second round of voting will take place on June 27.
It would make an interesting PB poll of an evening:
How many of us know how many anti-vaxxers in our immediate circle?
I'm talking about immediate family members, perhaps as distant as close cousins, and good personal friends (people you can talk freely with over a drink)
I have two anti-vaxxers
One very close friend
And a sibling
Out of a total of about 30?
Anyone else?
None for me. Although I know a few womenfolk who are a bit scared of the vaccines.
On PB itself, I believe the only two antivaxxers are Contrarian and Dura Ace.
My father is an anti vaxxer. I'm not sure he's anti vaccines per se but he thinks the COVID vaccine is rushed and unsafe. He doesn't really think that COVID is worse than the flu anyway.
In my youth he was a Lib Dem activist and even stood as a council candidate in the late 80s. He was pro Brexit and his descent into lunacy began there. I'm not correlating Brexit with anti vaxx but I do think that it was responsible for his entry into a certain echo chamber. All that elite Brexit betrayal rhetoric can exact a price for some people.
He has absolutely nailed it here. Describes almost every avid Remainer I know (as in know on the internet)
"Here in Britain, Labour is lumped in with a “big blob” of its own. Too often a loud part of that blob sounds like either a select priesthood, speaking to itself about questions that would strike most people as abstract angels-on-a-pinhead theology, or a self-appointed police force dispensing constant, scolding judgment, wagging its finger at the latest supposed infraction of progressive standards. It’s exhausting and so unappealing that even a serially dishonest and incompetent government – but one that seems to accept you, your country and your way of life without pursed-lipped judgment – seems preferable by comparison."
Reading the grauniad comments I am struck by the wide division between those who accept the article has validity and those who absolutely refuse their reality. It rather makes Mr. Freedlands point for him.
There was a similar article in Unherd a couple of days ago, which concluded with a similar point: People will often put up with being ruled by people who cheat them, or lie to them, or who mismanage the country - as recent polls illustrate. But they won't put up with being ruled by people who openly despise them. https://unherd.com/2021/06/the-self-loathing-of-britains-elites/
Yes, I think that does explain the C and A result, people won't vote for those that despise them.
The C&A result is an ancient type of byelection result, with little evidence that it is about being despised and loads of evidence that it's about how to vote at byelections. Massive anti governments swings are common where the circumstances are right, and are usually altered back over time or by the next election. The new trend is the government winning against the opposition. The Tories are in with a chance (less chance than the bookies say) with this yet again.
The collapse of the non big urban (London) blue wall is massively overstated. Look at the map as a whole rather than a few interesting cases.
Freedland is excellent but still manages to take for granted that Labour is the right answer to the progressive cause. Maybe it isn't. Maybe the Tories are the most progressive party around.
If Labour stood where the Tories stand about the aspirational middling sort I would vote for them in GEs as I do in local elections. But nationally they are a crowd of uncommunicating enclaves of special interest groups who patronise people like me.
The Tories aren't progressive. And that isn't what the WWC red wallers want. They actively sought and voted for regressive politics. They're not booing the England team taking the knee because they want progressive politics.
Nice try, but you may be making some assumptions about what progress is about that aren't shared by the middling sort. Some people think virtue signalling is never progressive, but helping and supporting people is.
So what help and support for the victims of racism do the boo-ers engage in?
If you believe blm is divisive and does more to promote racial disharmony than the problems it purports to fix then showing your contempt for it is the positive thing to do.
Before you whine on about taking the knee isn't connected to blm remember people like you claim the england flag is associated with racism because people like the bnp use it. BLM use taking the knee...it is therefore tainted by those arses
I don't think the English flag racist and often fly it during tournaments. I just respect the English players too in their statements about racist abuse.
I would be grateful if you would not misrepresent my views on these things. It doesn't help discussion when you attribute to me beliefs that I do not hold.
I did not say you specifically I said people like you meaning the progressive left and sorry yes a lot of them do regard the english flag as racist.
Certainly not me, nor the many England fans who applaud the the knee. I don't think England fans are more racist than others, indeed the opposite. It is much more of an issue in other countries. Clearly it is still a problem for our players though.
Racism is bad I make no buts about that. I can't stand it personally and I always try to judge people on what they do. Having said that I do see taking the knee as divisive and would certainly boo it because I don't think it unites us but divides us.
Okay team I think you've got my point. This vaccine was rushed. Everyone saying oh it wasn't vaccines have been around for ages it's just that the approval process was truncated or it was just emergency authorisation or ..
The people who developed and authorised it have been proudly proclaiming how quick the process has been.
But whatever...it's a small step from there to say, as plenty are on here right now, that it should be compulsory.
And still you don't get it.
Your opinion is that it was rushed, but while it has been done swiftly, precisely zero corners have been cut with regard to safety. What has not been done, in your opinion? How long ‘should’ it take?
No idea.
I just googled vaccine trial length and the first result has this to start:
"Vaccine development is a long, complex process, often lasting 10-15 years and involving a combination of public and private involvement."
Except in pandemics. They did much the same during the East African ebola outbreak, they can now control it with ring vaccination
I googled timeline of Ebola vaccine.
"The period of 5 years from the start of Phase 1 trials in Oct 2014 to the approval of this vaccine in Nov 2019, was much faster than the typical 10–15 year timeline for vaccine development and approval4. A timeline of the key activities in the development of this Ebola vaccine is summarized in Fig."
Because the whole world didn't drop everything and prioritise Ebola.
Exactly. We rushed it.
Which steps were abbreviated or missed out, in the process of producing the COVID vaccines? Put up or....
No idea. Ask the scientists who have been involved and who have trumpeted the unprecedented speed of the vaccine effort. Consider also the usual vaccine development timeframe of 10-15 years and the accelerated Ebola vaccine timeframe of five years.
So, shit posting. Got it.
If you are interested in facts, there are plenty of examples of shortening schedules, without ignoring steps, by orders of magnitude, in various fields.
It's remarkable what you can do, when you tell the committee to select the biscuits for the committee meeting to decide on who should chair the meeting on deciding something worthwhile.... to go jump in a lake.
It’s a bit like driving across a busy city in rush hour. Normally you spend lots of time waiting at traffic lights, but when you have a police escort, you can take the same journey and get to the same place, just as safely, but faster.
The result has been faster vaccine development than we’ve ever seen, but without cutting back on testing and safety measures.
Brilliant. They rushed it and it's all safe and we should all be happy.
Sped up, rather than rushed.
Processes done in parallel with massive resources, rather than shortcuts taken to get a fast result.
It’s a bit like driving across a busy city in rush hour. Normally you spend lots of time waiting at traffic lights, but when you have a police escort, you can take the same journey and get to the same place, just as safely, but faster.
The result has been faster vaccine development than we’ve ever seen, but without cutting back on testing and safety measures.
Brilliant. They rushed it and it's all safe and we should all be happy.
I'm not entirely sure why it is that you've chosen this particular hill to die on. The difference between a task being sped up by the allocation of extra resource and a task being done in haste seems quite clear.
If a machine is repaired in ten hours by one mechanic or in five hours by two, the end result isn't necessarily going to be any different. It's just going to be arrived at more rapidly in the latter instance, that's all.
Yep I'm sure. We rushed the vaccine oh sorry we shortened the schedule of the vaccine and thank goodness we did.
We have also already had vaccine refusers likened to criminals.
We are all desperate to get back to "normal". But can you see what we are giving up in terms of our tolerance and accepting in terms of our mindset in return.
We're not quite at burn the witch levels but give it time.
Labour has said the government should end the consideration of academic qualifications for civil service jobs apart from where directly related to the post, to end the “snobbery” over degrees.
Labour’s deputy leader, Angela Rayner, said degrees and A-levels should only be taken into account where they are a genuine occupational requirement, such as science qualifications.
The civil service doesn't ask candidates to say what university they went to - they think all degrees are equal. So they might as well not care about degrees at all, in my opinion.
All degrees are equal, mutatis mutandis. What an Oxbridge degree tells you is that its holder managed to get into Oxbridge. And because getting into Oxbridge is difficult, that can be useful information. But it does not mean that Oxbridge has a better value of pi than Hull.
All degrees are not equal. Nor are degrees in the same subject from different universities.
It’s a bit like driving across a busy city in rush hour. Normally you spend lots of time waiting at traffic lights, but when you have a police escort, you can take the same journey and get to the same place, just as safely, but faster.
The result has been faster vaccine development than we’ve ever seen, but without cutting back on testing and safety measures.
Brilliant. They rushed it and it's all safe and we should all be happy.
Sped up, rather than rushed.
Processes done in parallel with massive resources, rather than shortcuts taken to get a fast result.
Labour has said the government should end the consideration of academic qualifications for civil service jobs apart from where directly related to the post, to end the “snobbery” over degrees.
Labour’s deputy leader, Angela Rayner, said degrees and A-levels should only be taken into account where they are a genuine occupational requirement, such as science qualifications.
The civil service doesn't ask candidates to say what university they went to - they think all degrees are equal. So they might as well not care about degrees at all, in my opinion.
All degrees are equal, mutatis mutandis. What an Oxbridge degree tells you is that its holder managed to get into Oxbridge. And because getting into Oxbridge is difficult, that can be useful information. But it does not mean that Oxbridge has a better value of pi than Hull.
Yeah, so I'd happily admit that a geography degree from Bristol, Southampton or Manchester is almost certainly more valuable than my Oxford geography degree. But I'd like to think it's worth a bit more than a social science degree from a former poly.
Okay team I think you've got my point. This vaccine was rushed. Everyone saying oh it wasn't vaccines have been around for ages it's just that the approval process was truncated or it was just emergency authorisation or ..
The people who developed and authorised it have been proudly proclaiming how quick the process has been.
But whatever...it's a small step from there to say, as plenty are on here right now, that it should be compulsory.
And still you don't get it.
Your opinion is that it was rushed, but while it has been done swiftly, precisely zero corners have been cut with regard to safety. What has not been done, in your opinion? How long ‘should’ it take?
No idea.
I just googled vaccine trial length and the first result has this to start:
"Vaccine development is a long, complex process, often lasting 10-15 years and involving a combination of public and private involvement."
Except in pandemics. They did much the same during the East African ebola outbreak, they can now control it with ring vaccination
I googled timeline of Ebola vaccine.
"The period of 5 years from the start of Phase 1 trials in Oct 2014 to the approval of this vaccine in Nov 2019, was much faster than the typical 10–15 year timeline for vaccine development and approval4. A timeline of the key activities in the development of this Ebola vaccine is summarized in Fig."
Because the whole world didn't drop everything and prioritise Ebola.
Exactly. We rushed it.
Which steps were abbreviated or missed out, in the process of producing the COVID vaccines? Put up or....
No idea. Ask the scientists who have been involved and who have trumpeted the unprecedented speed of the vaccine effort. Consider also the usual vaccine development timeframe of 10-15 years and the accelerated Ebola vaccine timeframe of five years.
So, shit posting. Got it.
If you are interested in facts, there are plenty of examples of shortening schedules, without ignoring steps, by orders of magnitude, in various fields.
It's remarkable what you can do, when you tell the committee to select the biscuits for the committee meeting to decide on who should chair the meeting on deciding something worthwhile.... to go jump in a lake.
"Shortening schedules" = rushed.
Finally, thank you.
No, shortening schedules != rushed.
We completed the vaccine approval process much more quickly than usual. We shortened the schedule. Or sped it up.
Well at least we have got rid of the "we didn't rush the vaccine" posts.
We can all agree that it was rushed. Or rather, it was on a shortened schedule. Happy to use that term in future if it helps keep the blood pressure down.
OK so it was “rushed”. But without any compromise on safety. So people opposing taking the vaccines on the grounds of the former because they assume the latter cannot be true are misguided. And you will happy to strongly argue the case for taking the vaccines when you come across people with this misguided belief.
And we are all on the same page. Good.
Thank you for accepting that the vaccine was rushed.
It’s a bit like driving across a busy city in rush hour. Normally you spend lots of time waiting at traffic lights, but when you have a police escort, you can take the same journey and get to the same place, just as safely, but faster.
The result has been faster vaccine development than we’ve ever seen, but without cutting back on testing and safety measures.
Brilliant. They rushed it and it's all safe and we should all be happy.
Sped up, rather than rushed.
Processes done in parallel with massive resources, rather than shortcuts taken to get a fast result.
Sped up rather than rushed.
Classic.
I’ll refer to a dictionary to settle the question.
Labour has said the government should end the consideration of academic qualifications for civil service jobs apart from where directly related to the post, to end the “snobbery” over degrees.
Labour’s deputy leader, Angela Rayner, said degrees and A-levels should only be taken into account where they are a genuine occupational requirement, such as science qualifications.
So twenty years of pushing degrees as an end in themselves (notionally to develop an educated workforce well placed for the workforce of the future) with costs increasingly passed on to students who pursue them (starting right from the initial £1,000 fees back in 1998) on the basis of the “lifetime graduate premium”, and now all to be treated equally because it’s all “snobbery”!
Isn't that much the same perennial argument that we see here, that many degrees are pointless and no substitute for on the job training? That they are just an entrance ticket to a white collar career?
Glad to see her make the case.
Except her solution is baby out with the bathwater....to mandidate you shouldn't take into account say a candidate got a double first from Cambridge in English is stupid.
That's quite different from saying we are opening a track into entry level.positions where a degree isn't automatically required and lots of training will be given is a different kettle of fish.
It is the middle-class finishing school argument. Why should an English degree count for more or less than a Geography degree, if neither is needed for the job? At best, it is a proxy for intelligence or dedication. (The funny thing is that these arguments lurch from right to left wing and back again.)
I would hope.people doing both of those types of degrees had learned some very valuable skills applicable to a wide range of jobs. Its not the be all and end all, but to graduate say top of your class in an established subject from a world class university requires a combination of intelligence and dedication. So to just say we don't consider that at all is ridiculous. It pertinent information.
The logical conclusion the other way is actually we only need about 20 universities who only teach STEM, because everything else is pointless, we just train everybody on the job at night school.
An established subject? English was the media studies of the late nineteenth century.
STEM only universities? Take that thought and apply it to secondary schools. Maybe schools should teach everyone IT – word processing, spreadsheets, building web sites and so on – and cooking and electrics and basic nursing and so on. But what to drop in order to make room for these new subjects?
Okay team I think you've got my point. This vaccine was rushed. Everyone saying oh it wasn't vaccines have been around for ages it's just that the approval process was truncated or it was just emergency authorisation or ..
The people who developed and authorised it have been proudly proclaiming how quick the process has been.
But whatever...it's a small step from there to say, as plenty are on here right now, that it should be compulsory.
And still you don't get it.
Your opinion is that it was rushed, but while it has been done swiftly, precisely zero corners have been cut with regard to safety. What has not been done, in your opinion? How long ‘should’ it take?
What I object to is your use of the word 'rushed', which in most cases is used to imply a trade-off between speed and quality/safety. In this case, I honestly don't think that was the case. There was an expedited process, not a rushed one.
Expedited. OK. Shortened, sped up, expedited.
Vs the usual 10-15 years.
Hence still whatever the fuck word you want to use it is sane to refuse it.
Labour has said the government should end the consideration of academic qualifications for civil service jobs apart from where directly related to the post, to end the “snobbery” over degrees.
Labour’s deputy leader, Angela Rayner, said degrees and A-levels should only be taken into account where they are a genuine occupational requirement, such as science qualifications.
So twenty years of pushing degrees as an end in themselves (notionally to develop an educated workforce well placed for the workforce of the future) with costs increasingly passed on to students who pursue them (starting right from the initial £1,000 fees back in 1998) on the basis of the “lifetime graduate premium”, and now all to be treated equally because it’s all “snobbery”!
Isn't that much the same perennial argument that we see here, that many degrees are pointless and no substitute for on the job training? That they are just an entrance ticket to a white collar career?
Glad to see her make the case.
Civil Service has always had entry level jobs and “on the job” training.
Yes, but the Fast Stream (the officer class of the Civil Service) is recruited by examination. There is no need to require a degree, just a good score.
EDIT: Just re-read your comment and realise that you were suggesting that they could get rid of that requirement. Cold day in Hell, etc. etc.
I do have quite strong anti-education sentiments for someone who works in education! Indeed I think that the abolition of universities may well be on balance a good thing.
Labour has said the government should end the consideration of academic qualifications for civil service jobs apart from where directly related to the post, to end the “snobbery” over degrees.
Labour’s deputy leader, Angela Rayner, said degrees and A-levels should only be taken into account where they are a genuine occupational requirement, such as science qualifications.
So twenty years of pushing degrees as an end in themselves (notionally to develop an educated workforce well placed for the workforce of the future) with costs increasingly passed on to students who pursue them (starting right from the initial £1,000 fees back in 1998) on the basis of the “lifetime graduate premium”, and now all to be treated equally because it’s all “snobbery”!
Isn't that much the same perennial argument that we see here, that many degrees are pointless and no substitute for on the job training? That they are just an entrance ticket to a white collar career?
Glad to see her make the case.
Civil Service has always had entry level jobs and “on the job” training.
Yes, but the Fast Stream (the officer class of the Civil Service) is recruited by examination. There is no need to require a degree, just a good score.
EDIT: Just re-read your comment and realise that you were suggesting that they could get rid of that requirement. Cold day in Hell, etc. etc.
I do have quite strong anti-education sentiments for someone who works in education! Indeed I think that the abolition of universities may well be on balance a good thing.
As a kid I remember hearing many of my elders say "I wish I'd worked harder at school." I'm not sure if they were telling the truth, but I genuinely wish I hadn't worked has hard, or perhaps hadn't given a f*** what some of my teachers at school said to me.
Okay team I think you've got my point. This vaccine was rushed. Everyone saying oh it wasn't vaccines have been around for ages it's just that the approval process was truncated or it was just emergency authorisation or ..
The people who developed and authorised it have been proudly proclaiming how quick the process has been.
But whatever...it's a small step from there to say, as plenty are on here right now, that it should be compulsory.
And still you don't get it.
Your opinion is that it was rushed, but while it has been done swiftly, precisely zero corners have been cut with regard to safety. What has not been done, in your opinion? How long ‘should’ it take?
What I object to is your use of the word 'rushed', which in most cases is used to imply a trade-off between speed and quality/safety. In this case, I honestly don't think that was the case. There was an expedited process, not a rushed one.
Expedited. OK. Shortened, sped up, expedited.
Vs the usual 10-15 years.
Hence still whatever the fuck word you want to use it is sane to refuse it.
You are using rushed to imply unsafe. That is my objection. You have provided no evidence of what has not been done to ensure its safety in line with all other clinical trials.
Labour has said the government should end the consideration of academic qualifications for civil service jobs apart from where directly related to the post, to end the “snobbery” over degrees.
Labour’s deputy leader, Angela Rayner, said degrees and A-levels should only be taken into account where they are a genuine occupational requirement, such as science qualifications.
So twenty years of pushing degrees as an end in themselves (notionally to develop an educated workforce well placed for the workforce of the future) with costs increasingly passed on to students who pursue them (starting right from the initial £1,000 fees back in 1998) on the basis of the “lifetime graduate premium”, and now all to be treated equally because it’s all “snobbery”!
Isn't that much the same perennial argument that we see here, that many degrees are pointless and no substitute for on the job training? That they are just an entrance ticket to a white collar career?
Glad to see her make the case.
Except her solution is baby out with the bathwater....to mandidate you shouldn't take into account say a candidate got a double first from Cambridge in English is stupid.
That's quite different from saying we are opening a track into entry level.positions where a degree isn't automatically required and lots of training will be given is a different kettle of fish.
It is the middle-class finishing school argument. Why should an English degree count for more or less than a Geography degree, if neither is needed for the job? At best, it is a proxy for intelligence or dedication. (The funny thing is that these arguments lurch from right to left wing and back again.)
I would hope.people doing both of those types of degrees had learned some very valuable skills applicable to a wide range of jobs. Its not the be all and end all, but to graduate say top of your class in an established subject from a world class university requires a combination of intelligence and dedication. So to just say we don't consider that at all is ridiculous. It pertinent information.
The logical conclusion the other way is actually we only need about 20 universities who only teach STEM, because everything else is pointless, we just train everybody on the job at night school.
An established subject? English was the media studies of the late nineteenth century.
STEM only universities? Take that thought and apply it to secondary schools. Maybe schools should teach everyone IT – word processing, spreadsheets, building web sites and so on – and cooking and electrics and basic nursing and so on. But what to drop in order to make room for these new subjects?
That was my.point....if degree are pointless as they won't be taken into consideration other than science specific roles (that's Angela Rayner position) for jobs, don't need many unis or degrees.
Okay team I think you've got my point. This vaccine was rushed. Everyone saying oh it wasn't vaccines have been around for ages it's just that the approval process was truncated or it was just emergency authorisation or ..
The people who developed and authorised it have been proudly proclaiming how quick the process has been.
But whatever...it's a small step from there to say, as plenty are on here right now, that it should be compulsory.
And still you don't get it.
Your opinion is that it was rushed, but while it has been done swiftly, precisely zero corners have been cut with regard to safety. What has not been done, in your opinion? How long ‘should’ it take?
What I object to is your use of the word 'rushed', which in most cases is used to imply a trade-off between speed and quality/safety. In this case, I honestly don't think that was the case. There was an expedited process, not a rushed one.
Expedited. OK. Shortened, sped up, expedited.
Vs the usual 10-15 years.
Hence still whatever the fuck word you want to use it is sane to refuse it.
You are using rushed to imply unsafe. That is my objection. You have provided no evidence of what has not been done to ensure its safety in line with all other clinical trials.
Did I use the word "rush" in the post you just replied to?
Okay team I think you've got my point. This vaccine was rushed. Everyone saying oh it wasn't vaccines have been around for ages it's just that the approval process was truncated or it was just emergency authorisation or ..
The people who developed and authorised it have been proudly proclaiming how quick the process has been.
But whatever...it's a small step from there to say, as plenty are on here right now, that it should be compulsory.
And still you don't get it.
Your opinion is that it was rushed, but while it has been done swiftly, precisely zero corners have been cut with regard to safety. What has not been done, in your opinion? How long ‘should’ it take?
What I object to is your use of the word 'rushed', which in most cases is used to imply a trade-off between speed and quality/safety. In this case, I honestly don't think that was the case. There was an expedited process, not a rushed one.
Expedited. OK. Shortened, sped up, expedited.
Vs the usual 10-15 years.
Hence still whatever the fuck word you want to use it is sane to refuse it.
Jesus H. Going around in circles. It is sane to refuse it on the ground of expedition if you believe this compromised on safety. But you’ve accepted that there was no compromise on safety. Hence at best you must believe that such people are, if not insane, at least misguided?
Labour has said the government should end the consideration of academic qualifications for civil service jobs apart from where directly related to the post, to end the “snobbery” over degrees.
Labour’s deputy leader, Angela Rayner, said degrees and A-levels should only be taken into account where they are a genuine occupational requirement, such as science qualifications.
So twenty years of pushing degrees as an end in themselves (notionally to develop an educated workforce well placed for the workforce of the future) with costs increasingly passed on to students who pursue them (starting right from the initial £1,000 fees back in 1998) on the basis of the “lifetime graduate premium”, and now all to be treated equally because it’s all “snobbery”!
Isn't that much the same perennial argument that we see here, that many degrees are pointless and no substitute for on the job training? That they are just an entrance ticket to a white collar career?
Glad to see her make the case.
Civil Service has always had entry level jobs and “on the job” training.
Yes, but the Fast Stream (the officer class of the Civil Service) is recruited by examination. There is no need to require a degree, just a good score.
EDIT: Just re-read your comment and realise that you were suggesting that they could get rid of that requirement. Cold day in Hell, etc. etc.
I do have quite strong anti-education sentiments for someone who works in education! Indeed I think that the abolition of universities may well be on balance a good thing.
That has to be one of the most idiotic things I think you have ever posted.
He has absolutely nailed it here. Describes almost every avid Remainer I know (as in know on the internet)
"Here in Britain, Labour is lumped in with a “big blob” of its own. Too often a loud part of that blob sounds like either a select priesthood, speaking to itself about questions that would strike most people as abstract angels-on-a-pinhead theology, or a self-appointed police force dispensing constant, scolding judgment, wagging its finger at the latest supposed infraction of progressive standards. It’s exhausting and so unappealing that even a serially dishonest and incompetent government – but one that seems to accept you, your country and your way of life without pursed-lipped judgment – seems preferable by comparison."
Reading the grauniad comments I am struck by the wide division between those who accept the article has validity and those who absolutely refuse their reality. It rather makes Mr. Freedlands point for him.
There was a similar article in Unherd a couple of days ago, which concluded with a similar point: People will often put up with being ruled by people who cheat them, or lie to them, or who mismanage the country - as recent polls illustrate. But they won't put up with being ruled by people who openly despise them. https://unherd.com/2021/06/the-self-loathing-of-britains-elites/
Yes, I think that does explain the C and A result, people won't vote for those that despise them.
The C&A result is an ancient type of byelection result, with little evidence that it is about being despised and loads of evidence that it's about how to vote at byelections. Massive anti governments swings are common where the circumstances are right, and are usually altered back over time or by the next election. The new trend is the government winning against the opposition. The Tories are in with a chance (less chance than the bookies say) with this yet again.
The collapse of the non big urban (London) blue wall is massively overstated. Look at the map as a whole rather than a few interesting cases.
Freedland is excellent but still manages to take for granted that Labour is the right answer to the progressive cause. Maybe it isn't. Maybe the Tories are the most progressive party around.
If Labour stood where the Tories stand about the aspirational middling sort I would vote for them in GEs as I do in local elections. But nationally they are a crowd of uncommunicating enclaves of special interest groups who patronise people like me.
The Tories aren't progressive. And that isn't what the WWC red wallers want. They actively sought and voted for regressive politics. They're not booing the England team taking the knee because they want progressive politics.
Nice try, but you may be making some assumptions about what progress is about that aren't shared by the middling sort. Some people think virtue signalling is never progressive, but helping and supporting people is.
So what help and support for the victims of racism do the boo-ers engage in?
If you believe blm is divisive and does more to promote racial disharmony than the problems it purports to fix then showing your contempt for it is the positive thing to do.
Before you whine on about taking the knee isn't connected to blm remember people like you claim the england flag is associated with racism because people like the bnp use it. BLM use taking the knee...it is therefore tainted by those arses
I don't think the English flag racist and often fly it during tournaments. I just respect the English players too in their statements about racist abuse.
I would be grateful if you would not misrepresent my views on these things. It doesn't help discussion when you attribute to me beliefs that I do not hold.
I did not say you specifically I said people like you meaning the progressive left and sorry yes a lot of them do regard the english flag as racist.
Certainly not me, nor the many England fans who applaud the the knee. I don't think England fans are more racist than others, indeed the opposite. It is much more of an issue in other countries. Clearly it is still a problem for our players though.
Racism is bad I make no buts about that. I can't stand it personally and I always try to judge people on what they do. Having said that I do see taking the knee as divisive and would certainly boo it because I don't think it unites us but divides us.
The only division is between racists and non-racists. And it is clear what side you are on.
"There is a progressive majority that could win if it were committed to a basic electoral non-aggression pact, with constitutional reform as the outcome. That’s the salient fact. Anyone who calls themselves a “politician” while ignoring it ought to quit."
Much more than that in the article. He wants Labour to have the correct policies over Gaza, Kashmir etc. Whatever those policies might be. Good luck to a party emphasising all that with middling and WWC England. And good luck with anyone trying to appease Islamic/middle eastern/leftish secular opinion all at the same time. It's a bit like trying to reach consensus about Christianity during the 30 Years War.
To win elections in England you need to be committed to strong defence, NATO, USA, and to keeping out of other people's wars until we are directly threatened. Getting that wrong finished Blair, and but for parliament would have finished off Cameron.
Among the unsung virtues of Boris Trump and Biden share this curiously so far) is his lack of desire to create needless widows and orphans by invading a medium sized middle eastern country. A policy which, as the Good Book says, covers a multitude of sins.
He has absolutely nailed it here. Describes almost every avid Remainer I know (as in know on the internet)
"Here in Britain, Labour is lumped in with a “big blob” of its own. Too often a loud part of that blob sounds like either a select priesthood, speaking to itself about questions that would strike most people as abstract angels-on-a-pinhead theology, or a self-appointed police force dispensing constant, scolding judgment, wagging its finger at the latest supposed infraction of progressive standards. It’s exhausting and so unappealing that even a serially dishonest and incompetent government – but one that seems to accept you, your country and your way of life without pursed-lipped judgment – seems preferable by comparison."
Reading the grauniad comments I am struck by the wide division between those who accept the article has validity and those who absolutely refuse their reality. It rather makes Mr. Freedlands point for him.
There was a similar article in Unherd a couple of days ago, which concluded with a similar point: People will often put up with being ruled by people who cheat them, or lie to them, or who mismanage the country - as recent polls illustrate. But they won't put up with being ruled by people who openly despise them. https://unherd.com/2021/06/the-self-loathing-of-britains-elites/
Yes, I think that does explain the C and A result, people won't vote for those that despise them.
The C&A result is an ancient type of byelection result, with little evidence that it is about being despised and loads of evidence that it's about how to vote at byelections. Massive anti governments swings are common where the circumstances are right, and are usually altered back over time or by the next election. The new trend is the government winning against the opposition. The Tories are in with a chance (less chance than the bookies say) with this yet again.
The collapse of the non big urban (London) blue wall is massively overstated. Look at the map as a whole rather than a few interesting cases.
Freedland is excellent but still manages to take for granted that Labour is the right answer to the progressive cause. Maybe it isn't. Maybe the Tories are the most progressive party around.
If Labour stood where the Tories stand about the aspirational middling sort I would vote for them in GEs as I do in local elections. But nationally they are a crowd of uncommunicating enclaves of special interest groups who patronise people like me.
The Tories aren't progressive. And that isn't what the WWC red wallers want. They actively sought and voted for regressive politics. They're not booing the England team taking the knee because they want progressive politics.
Your comment @RochdalePioneers exemplifies - consciously or unconsciously - why Labour is having problems with WWC Red Wallers. Your assumption that “they actively sought and voted for regressive politics” is the - pardon the pun - Black and White view that is taken by groups such as BLM ie if you are not with us, you are against you. While there are undoubted racists, there are also a lot who sit in the Grey zone - they recognise racism exists and dislike it but don’t like being told they are privileged and / or “deserve” to be discriminated against because of their whiteness, especially as many of them are poor themselves.
I'm not in Labour remember and frankly having spent 15 years in the red wall in a town riddled with social deprivation I get what they have done. I am not sneering at them - their perspective is that "progressive" politics is every other group than them getting attention and money whilst they start with nothing and watch their community stay dirt poor.
This is why there are so many right wing independent groups formed in these kinds of areas. They can't stand Labour, they don't trust the Tories, so time to do it yourself.
I think that is broadly right but it’s not just the every other group getting the goodies, it’s also the feeling that they are being constantly sneered at and pushed aside. That is probably a stronger motivation to turn against Labour.
If you want a small example of this, look at the adverts going on for the Wales-Italy game on TV. There are plenty of adverts - in fact, virtually all - that feature non-white characters and, in the case of brands like Nike and (less so) Adidas pushing an agenda. Try counting the number of WWC characters in them.
Yup - thats what they think and they are of course wrong. We're seeing companies advertising diversity because that is society but until very recently you would never guess looking at adverts.
The idea that WWC men are being discriminated against is laughable. They're white and they're male - thats a major advantage that so many people don't have when being discriminated against by white men.
There absolutely is an issue with education and attainment and mobility for the WWC. Sorry but much of this is self-inflicted. Talk to people who work in primary schools in WWC areas at the absolute pond scum that kids have as parents. Some of them are thick and poor because they make themselves so. Some of them feel pushed out by forrin labour because they are too lazy to work. Sorry, but someone has to call them out.
I see @Yokes has beaten me to it but, ironically, you’ve adopted the tactics of the likes of the BNP especially in the “Sorry but someone has to call them out”, which is the sort of statement you’d expect to hear from someone explaining why it is acceptable to think Afro-Caribbean Black people are more prone to crime or Pakistani taxi drivers are all child rapists. It’s the sweeping, prejudicial, condemning attitude. You may not be Labour now but you are, for many WWC, the epitome of what they hate about people on the left wing.
Labour has said the government should end the consideration of academic qualifications for civil service jobs apart from where directly related to the post, to end the “snobbery” over degrees.
Labour’s deputy leader, Angela Rayner, said degrees and A-levels should only be taken into account where they are a genuine occupational requirement, such as science qualifications.
So twenty years of pushing degrees as an end in themselves (notionally to develop an educated workforce well placed for the workforce of the future) with costs increasingly passed on to students who pursue them (starting right from the initial £1,000 fees back in 1998) on the basis of the “lifetime graduate premium”, and now all to be treated equally because it’s all “snobbery”!
Isn't that much the same perennial argument that we see here, that many degrees are pointless and no substitute for on the job training? That they are just an entrance ticket to a white collar career?
Glad to see her make the case.
Except her solution is baby out with the bathwater....to mandidate you shouldn't take into account say a candidate got a double first from Cambridge in English is stupid.
That's quite different from saying we are opening a track into entry level.positions where a degree isn't automatically required and lots of training will be given is a different kettle of fish.
It is the middle-class finishing school argument. Why should an English degree count for more or less than a Geography degree, if neither is needed for the job? At best, it is a proxy for intelligence or dedication. (The funny thing is that these arguments lurch from right to left wing and back again.)
I would hope.people doing both of those types of degrees had learned some very valuable skills applicable to a wide range of jobs. Its not the be all and end all, but to graduate say top of your class in an established subject from a world class university requires a combination of intelligence and dedication. So to just say we don't consider that at all is ridiculous. It pertinent information.
The logical conclusion the other way is actually we only need about 20 universities who only teach STEM, because everything else is pointless, we just train everybody on the job at night school.
An established subject? English was the media studies of the late nineteenth century.
STEM only universities? Take that thought and apply it to secondary schools. Maybe schools should teach everyone IT – word processing, spreadsheets, building web sites and so on – and cooking and electrics and basic nursing and so on. But what to drop in order to make room for these new subjects?
That was my.point....if degree are pointless as they won't be taken into consideration other than science specific roles (that's Angela Rayner position) for jobs, don't need many unis or degrees.
A degree is generally speaking, an almost essential criterion for a foreign employment visa. Not saying that’s right but that’s the way it is.
Labour has said the government should end the consideration of academic qualifications for civil service jobs apart from where directly related to the post, to end the “snobbery” over degrees.
Labour’s deputy leader, Angela Rayner, said degrees and A-levels should only be taken into account where they are a genuine occupational requirement, such as science qualifications.
So twenty years of pushing degrees as an end in themselves (notionally to develop an educated workforce well placed for the workforce of the future) with costs increasingly passed on to students who pursue them (starting right from the initial £1,000 fees back in 1998) on the basis of the “lifetime graduate premium”, and now all to be treated equally because it’s all “snobbery”!
Isn't that much the same perennial argument that we see here, that many degrees are pointless and no substitute for on the job training? That they are just an entrance ticket to a white collar career?
Glad to see her make the case.
Except her solution is baby out with the bathwater....to mandidate you shouldn't take into account say a candidate got a double first from Cambridge in English is stupid.
That's quite different from saying we are opening a track into entry level.positions where a degree isn't automatically required and lots of training will be given is a different kettle of fish.
It is the middle-class finishing school argument. Why should an English degree count for more or less than a Geography degree, if neither is needed for the job? At best, it is a proxy for intelligence or dedication. (The funny thing is that these arguments lurch from right to left wing and back again.)
I would hope.people doing both of those types of degrees had learned some very valuable skills applicable to a wide range of jobs. Its not the be all and end all, but to graduate say top of your class in an established subject from a world class university requires a combination of intelligence and dedication. So to just say we don't consider that at all is ridiculous. It pertinent information.
The logical conclusion the other way is actually we only need about 20 universities who only teach STEM, because everything else is pointless, we just train everybody on the job at night school.
An established subject? English was the media studies of the late nineteenth century.
STEM only universities? Take that thought and apply it to secondary schools. Maybe schools should teach everyone IT – word processing, spreadsheets, building web sites and so on – and cooking and electrics and basic nursing and so on. But what to drop in order to make room for these new subjects?
That was my.point....if degree are pointless as they won't be taken into consideration other than science specific roles (that's Angela Rayner position) for jobs, don't need many unis or degrees.
Which is exactly the point. Many jobs that ask for degrees now used to ask for o levels or a levels and really dont require a degree. However now we are sending 50% to uni they can ask for a degree even though not necessary and have a good chance of getting someone even though that person will do actually no better than someone with just o levels or a levels because the job doesn't really require one.
He has absolutely nailed it here. Describes almost every avid Remainer I know (as in know on the internet)
"Here in Britain, Labour is lumped in with a “big blob” of its own. Too often a loud part of that blob sounds like either a select priesthood, speaking to itself about questions that would strike most people as abstract angels-on-a-pinhead theology, or a self-appointed police force dispensing constant, scolding judgment, wagging its finger at the latest supposed infraction of progressive standards. It’s exhausting and so unappealing that even a serially dishonest and incompetent government – but one that seems to accept you, your country and your way of life without pursed-lipped judgment – seems preferable by comparison."
Reading the grauniad comments I am struck by the wide division between those who accept the article has validity and those who absolutely refuse their reality. It rather makes Mr. Freedlands point for him.
There was a similar article in Unherd a couple of days ago, which concluded with a similar point: People will often put up with being ruled by people who cheat them, or lie to them, or who mismanage the country - as recent polls illustrate. But they won't put up with being ruled by people who openly despise them. https://unherd.com/2021/06/the-self-loathing-of-britains-elites/
Yes, I think that does explain the C and A result, people won't vote for those that despise them.
The C&A result is an ancient type of byelection result, with little evidence that it is about being despised and loads of evidence that it's about how to vote at byelections. Massive anti governments swings are common where the circumstances are right, and are usually altered back over time or by the next election. The new trend is the government winning against the opposition. The Tories are in with a chance (less chance than the bookies say) with this yet again.
The collapse of the non big urban (London) blue wall is massively overstated. Look at the map as a whole rather than a few interesting cases.
Freedland is excellent but still manages to take for granted that Labour is the right answer to the progressive cause. Maybe it isn't. Maybe the Tories are the most progressive party around.
If Labour stood where the Tories stand about the aspirational middling sort I would vote for them in GEs as I do in local elections. But nationally they are a crowd of uncommunicating enclaves of special interest groups who patronise people like me.
The Tories aren't progressive. And that isn't what the WWC red wallers want. They actively sought and voted for regressive politics. They're not booing the England team taking the knee because they want progressive politics.
Nice try, but you may be making some assumptions about what progress is about that aren't shared by the middling sort. Some people think virtue signalling is never progressive, but helping and supporting people is.
So what help and support for the victims of racism do the boo-ers engage in?
If you believe blm is divisive and does more to promote racial disharmony than the problems it purports to fix then showing your contempt for it is the positive thing to do.
Before you whine on about taking the knee isn't connected to blm remember people like you claim the england flag is associated with racism because people like the bnp use it. BLM use taking the knee...it is therefore tainted by those arses
I don't think the English flag racist and often fly it during tournaments. I just respect the English players too in their statements about racist abuse.
I would be grateful if you would not misrepresent my views on these things. It doesn't help discussion when you attribute to me beliefs that I do not hold.
I did not say you specifically I said people like you meaning the progressive left and sorry yes a lot of them do regard the english flag as racist.
Certainly not me, nor the many England fans who applaud the the knee. I don't think England fans are more racist than others, indeed the opposite. It is much more of an issue in other countries. Clearly it is still a problem for our players though.
Racism is bad I make no buts about that. I can't stand it personally and I always try to judge people on what they do. Having said that I do see taking the knee as divisive and would certainly boo it because I don't think it unites us but divides us.
The only division is between racists and non-racists. And it is clear what side you are on.
I disagree. The further division is wether you see taking the knee as either political or a form of religious practice you vehemently disagree with.
Taking the knee can mean so many different things To different people, because it was born out of these different things. So insisting it means only the one thing is wrong.
Okay team I think you've got my point. This vaccine was rushed. Everyone saying oh it wasn't vaccines have been around for ages it's just that the approval process was truncated or it was just emergency authorisation or ..
The people who developed and authorised it have been proudly proclaiming how quick the process has been.
But whatever...it's a small step from there to say, as plenty are on here right now, that it should be compulsory.
And still you don't get it.
Your opinion is that it was rushed, but while it has been done swiftly, precisely zero corners have been cut with regard to safety. What has not been done, in your opinion? How long ‘should’ it take?
What I object to is your use of the word 'rushed', which in most cases is used to imply a trade-off between speed and quality/safety. In this case, I honestly don't think that was the case. There was an expedited process, not a rushed one.
Expedited. OK. Shortened, sped up, expedited.
Vs the usual 10-15 years.
Hence still whatever the fuck word you want to use it is sane to refuse it.
You are using rushed to imply unsafe. That is my objection. You have provided no evidence of what has not been done to ensure its safety in line with all other clinical trials.
Did I use the word "rush" in the post you just replied to?
No, but about fifteen times in earlier posts. Vaccines are safe and have had the same scrutiny as other products.
Okay team I think you've got my point. This vaccine was rushed. Everyone saying oh it wasn't vaccines have been around for ages it's just that the approval process was truncated or it was just emergency authorisation or ..
The people who developed and authorised it have been proudly proclaiming how quick the process has been.
But whatever...it's a small step from there to say, as plenty are on here right now, that it should be compulsory.
And still you don't get it.
Your opinion is that it was rushed, but while it has been done swiftly, precisely zero corners have been cut with regard to safety. What has not been done, in your opinion? How long ‘should’ it take?
What I object to is your use of the word 'rushed', which in most cases is used to imply a trade-off between speed and quality/safety. In this case, I honestly don't think that was the case. There was an expedited process, not a rushed one.
Expedited. OK. Shortened, sped up, expedited.
Vs the usual 10-15 years.
Hence still whatever the fuck word you want to use it is sane to refuse it.
No its not.
All the steps were done properly. Just because we didn't spend time stopped at red lights doesn't mean that there was anything excessive about it.
He has absolutely nailed it here. Describes almost every avid Remainer I know (as in know on the internet)
"Here in Britain, Labour is lumped in with a “big blob” of its own. Too often a loud part of that blob sounds like either a select priesthood, speaking to itself about questions that would strike most people as abstract angels-on-a-pinhead theology, or a self-appointed police force dispensing constant, scolding judgment, wagging its finger at the latest supposed infraction of progressive standards. It’s exhausting and so unappealing that even a serially dishonest and incompetent government – but one that seems to accept you, your country and your way of life without pursed-lipped judgment – seems preferable by comparison."
Reading the grauniad comments I am struck by the wide division between those who accept the article has validity and those who absolutely refuse their reality. It rather makes Mr. Freedlands point for him.
There was a similar article in Unherd a couple of days ago, which concluded with a similar point: People will often put up with being ruled by people who cheat them, or lie to them, or who mismanage the country - as recent polls illustrate. But they won't put up with being ruled by people who openly despise them. https://unherd.com/2021/06/the-self-loathing-of-britains-elites/
Yes, I think that does explain the C and A result, people won't vote for those that despise them.
The C&A result is an ancient type of byelection result, with little evidence that it is about being despised and loads of evidence that it's about how to vote at byelections. Massive anti governments swings are common where the circumstances are right, and are usually altered back over time or by the next election. The new trend is the government winning against the opposition. The Tories are in with a chance (less chance than the bookies say) with this yet again.
The collapse of the non big urban (London) blue wall is massively overstated. Look at the map as a whole rather than a few interesting cases.
Freedland is excellent but still manages to take for granted that Labour is the right answer to the progressive cause. Maybe it isn't. Maybe the Tories are the most progressive party around.
If Labour stood where the Tories stand about the aspirational middling sort I would vote for them in GEs as I do in local elections. But nationally they are a crowd of uncommunicating enclaves of special interest groups who patronise people like me.
The Tories aren't progressive. And that isn't what the WWC red wallers want. They actively sought and voted for regressive politics. They're not booing the England team taking the knee because they want progressive politics.
Nice try, but you may be making some assumptions about what progress is about that aren't shared by the middling sort. Some people think virtue signalling is never progressive, but helping and supporting people is.
So what help and support for the victims of racism do the boo-ers engage in?
If you believe blm is divisive and does more to promote racial disharmony than the problems it purports to fix then showing your contempt for it is the positive thing to do.
Before you whine on about taking the knee isn't connected to blm remember people like you claim the england flag is associated with racism because people like the bnp use it. BLM use taking the knee...it is therefore tainted by those arses
I don't think the English flag racist and often fly it during tournaments. I just respect the English players too in their statements about racist abuse.
I would be grateful if you would not misrepresent my views on these things. It doesn't help discussion when you attribute to me beliefs that I do not hold.
I did not say you specifically I said people like you meaning the progressive left and sorry yes a lot of them do regard the english flag as racist.
Certainly not me, nor the many England fans who applaud the the knee. I don't think England fans are more racist than others, indeed the opposite. It is much more of an issue in other countries. Clearly it is still a problem for our players though.
Racism is bad I make no buts about that. I can't stand it personally and I always try to judge people on what they do. Having said that I do see taking the knee as divisive and would certainly boo it because I don't think it unites us but divides us.
The only division is between racists and non-racists. And it is clear what side you are on.
Yes I made that clear thank you for admitting it. Which is the point I made being opposed to the taking the knee gesture because it is divisive does not mean you are racist
He has absolutely nailed it here. Describes almost every avid Remainer I know (as in know on the internet)
"Here in Britain, Labour is lumped in with a “big blob” of its own. Too often a loud part of that blob sounds like either a select priesthood, speaking to itself about questions that would strike most people as abstract angels-on-a-pinhead theology, or a self-appointed police force dispensing constant, scolding judgment, wagging its finger at the latest supposed infraction of progressive standards. It’s exhausting and so unappealing that even a serially dishonest and incompetent government – but one that seems to accept you, your country and your way of life without pursed-lipped judgment – seems preferable by comparison."
Reading the grauniad comments I am struck by the wide division between those who accept the article has validity and those who absolutely refuse their reality. It rather makes Mr. Freedlands point for him.
There was a similar article in Unherd a couple of days ago, which concluded with a similar point: People will often put up with being ruled by people who cheat them, or lie to them, or who mismanage the country - as recent polls illustrate. But they won't put up with being ruled by people who openly despise them. https://unherd.com/2021/06/the-self-loathing-of-britains-elites/
Yes, I think that does explain the C and A result, people won't vote for those that despise them.
The C&A result is an ancient type of byelection result, with little evidence that it is about being despised and loads of evidence that it's about how to vote at byelections. Massive anti governments swings are common where the circumstances are right, and are usually altered back over time or by the next election. The new trend is the government winning against the opposition. The Tories are in with a chance (less chance than the bookies say) with this yet again.
The collapse of the non big urban (London) blue wall is massively overstated. Look at the map as a whole rather than a few interesting cases.
Freedland is excellent but still manages to take for granted that Labour is the right answer to the progressive cause. Maybe it isn't. Maybe the Tories are the most progressive party around.
If Labour stood where the Tories stand about the aspirational middling sort I would vote for them in GEs as I do in local elections. But nationally they are a crowd of uncommunicating enclaves of special interest groups who patronise people like me.
The Tories aren't progressive. And that isn't what the WWC red wallers want. They actively sought and voted for regressive politics. They're not booing the England team taking the knee because they want progressive politics.
Nice try, but you may be making some assumptions about what progress is about that aren't shared by the middling sort. Some people think virtue signalling is never progressive, but helping and supporting people is.
So what help and support for the victims of racism do the boo-ers engage in?
If you believe blm is divisive and does more to promote racial disharmony than the problems it purports to fix then showing your contempt for it is the positive thing to do.
Before you whine on about taking the knee isn't connected to blm remember people like you claim the england flag is associated with racism because people like the bnp use it. BLM use taking the knee...it is therefore tainted by those arses
I don't think the English flag racist and often fly it during tournaments. I just respect the English players too in their statements about racist abuse.
I would be grateful if you would not misrepresent my views on these things. It doesn't help discussion when you attribute to me beliefs that I do not hold.
I did not say you specifically I said people like you meaning the progressive left and sorry yes a lot of them do regard the english flag as racist.
Certainly not me, nor the many England fans who applaud the the knee. I don't think England fans are more racist than others, indeed the opposite. It is much more of an issue in other countries. Clearly it is still a problem for our players though.
Racism is bad I make no buts about that. I can't stand it personally and I always try to judge people on what they do. Having said that I do see taking the knee as divisive and would certainly boo it because I don't think it unites us but divides us.
The only division is between racists and non-racists. And it is clear what side you are on.
I disagree. The further division is wether you see taking the knee as either political or a form of religious practice you vehemently disagree with.
Taking the knee can mean so many different things To different people, because it was born out of these different things. So insisting it means only the one thing is wrong.
I am not talking about taking the knee. The division is between those who think it is appropriate to boo black footballers who are protesting racism and those who do not.
Labour has said the government should end the consideration of academic qualifications for civil service jobs apart from where directly related to the post, to end the “snobbery” over degrees.
Labour’s deputy leader, Angela Rayner, said degrees and A-levels should only be taken into account where they are a genuine occupational requirement, such as science qualifications.
So twenty years of pushing degrees as an end in themselves (notionally to develop an educated workforce well placed for the workforce of the future) with costs increasingly passed on to students who pursue them (starting right from the initial £1,000 fees back in 1998) on the basis of the “lifetime graduate premium”, and now all to be treated equally because it’s all “snobbery”!
Isn't that much the same perennial argument that we see here, that many degrees are pointless and no substitute for on the job training? That they are just an entrance ticket to a white collar career?
Glad to see her make the case.
Except her solution is baby out with the bathwater....to mandidate you shouldn't take into account say a candidate got a double first from Cambridge in English is stupid.
That's quite different from saying we are opening a track into entry level.positions where a degree isn't automatically required and lots of training will be given is a different kettle of fish.
It is the middle-class finishing school argument. Why should an English degree count for more or less than a Geography degree, if neither is needed for the job? At best, it is a proxy for intelligence or dedication. (The funny thing is that these arguments lurch from right to left wing and back again.)
I would hope.people doing both of those types of degrees had learned some very valuable skills applicable to a wide range of jobs. Its not the be all and end all, but to graduate say top of your class in an established subject from a world class university requires a combination of intelligence and dedication. So to just say we don't consider that at all is ridiculous. It pertinent information.
The logical conclusion the other way is actually we only need about 20 universities who only teach STEM, because everything else is pointless, we just train everybody on the job at night school.
The flaw in the logic of this post is Richard Burgon.
Edit - it does of course also apply in a wider sense to Boris Johnson, but Burgon was the one who read English at Cambridge.
Labour has said the government should end the consideration of academic qualifications for civil service jobs apart from where directly related to the post, to end the “snobbery” over degrees.
Labour’s deputy leader, Angela Rayner, said degrees and A-levels should only be taken into account where they are a genuine occupational requirement, such as science qualifications.
So twenty years of pushing degrees as an end in themselves (notionally to develop an educated workforce well placed for the workforce of the future) with costs increasingly passed on to students who pursue them (starting right from the initial £1,000 fees back in 1998) on the basis of the “lifetime graduate premium”, and now all to be treated equally because it’s all “snobbery”!
Isn't that much the same perennial argument that we see here, that many degrees are pointless and no substitute for on the job training? That they are just an entrance ticket to a white collar career?
Glad to see her make the case.
Except her solution is baby out with the bathwater....to mandidate you shouldn't take into account say a candidate got a double first from Cambridge in English is stupid.
That's quite different from saying we are opening a track into entry level.positions where a degree isn't automatically required and lots of training will be given is a different kettle of fish.
It is the middle-class finishing school argument. Why should an English degree count for more or less than a Geography degree, if neither is needed for the job? At best, it is a proxy for intelligence or dedication. (The funny thing is that these arguments lurch from right to left wing and back again.)
I would hope.people doing both of those types of degrees had learned some very valuable skills applicable to a wide range of jobs. Its not the be all and end all, but to graduate say top of your class in an established subject from a world class university requires a combination of intelligence and dedication. So to just say we don't consider that at all is ridiculous. It pertinent information.
The logical conclusion the other way is actually we only need about 20 universities who only teach STEM, because everything else is pointless, we just train everybody on the job at night school.
An established subject? English was the media studies of the late nineteenth century.
STEM only universities? Take that thought and apply it to secondary schools. Maybe schools should teach everyone IT – word processing, spreadsheets, building web sites and so on – and cooking and electrics and basic nursing and so on. But what to drop in order to make room for these new subjects?
That was my.point....if degree are pointless as they won't be taken into consideration other than science specific roles (that's Angela Rayner position) for jobs, don't need many unis or degrees.
Which is exactly the point. Many jobs that ask for degrees now used to ask for o levels or a levels and really dont require a degree. However now we are sending 50% to uni they can ask for a degree even though not necessary and have a good chance of getting someone even though that person will do actually no better than someone with just o levels or a levels because the job doesn't really require one.
I am not arguing that the massive expansion in uni sector was necessarily a good thing and that 50% need to go to there. I have long advocated for on job training, part time study via equivalent of US community college. I think we should have a much more mixed model than really the current far too binary system.
My point was Raymer absolutist statement, which taken to logical conclusion means it pretty pointless to outside a small niche segment of degrees.
He has absolutely nailed it here. Describes almost every avid Remainer I know (as in know on the internet)
"Here in Britain, Labour is lumped in with a “big blob” of its own. Too often a loud part of that blob sounds like either a select priesthood, speaking to itself about questions that would strike most people as abstract angels-on-a-pinhead theology, or a self-appointed police force dispensing constant, scolding judgment, wagging its finger at the latest supposed infraction of progressive standards. It’s exhausting and so unappealing that even a serially dishonest and incompetent government – but one that seems to accept you, your country and your way of life without pursed-lipped judgment – seems preferable by comparison."
Reading the grauniad comments I am struck by the wide division between those who accept the article has validity and those who absolutely refuse their reality. It rather makes Mr. Freedlands point for him.
There was a similar article in Unherd a couple of days ago, which concluded with a similar point: People will often put up with being ruled by people who cheat them, or lie to them, or who mismanage the country - as recent polls illustrate. But they won't put up with being ruled by people who openly despise them. https://unherd.com/2021/06/the-self-loathing-of-britains-elites/
Yes, I think that does explain the C and A result, people won't vote for those that despise them.
The C&A result is an ancient type of byelection result, with little evidence that it is about being despised and loads of evidence that it's about how to vote at byelections. Massive anti governments swings are common where the circumstances are right, and are usually altered back over time or by the next election. The new trend is the government winning against the opposition. The Tories are in with a chance (less chance than the bookies say) with this yet again.
The collapse of the non big urban (London) blue wall is massively overstated. Look at the map as a whole rather than a few interesting cases.
Freedland is excellent but still manages to take for granted that Labour is the right answer to the progressive cause. Maybe it isn't. Maybe the Tories are the most progressive party around.
If Labour stood where the Tories stand about the aspirational middling sort I would vote for them in GEs as I do in local elections. But nationally they are a crowd of uncommunicating enclaves of special interest groups who patronise people like me.
The Tories aren't progressive. And that isn't what the WWC red wallers want. They actively sought and voted for regressive politics. They're not booing the England team taking the knee because they want progressive politics.
Nice try, but you may be making some assumptions about what progress is about that aren't shared by the middling sort. Some people think virtue signalling is never progressive, but helping and supporting people is.
So what help and support for the victims of racism do the boo-ers engage in?
If you believe blm is divisive and does more to promote racial disharmony than the problems it purports to fix then showing your contempt for it is the positive thing to do.
Before you whine on about taking the knee isn't connected to blm remember people like you claim the england flag is associated with racism because people like the bnp use it. BLM use taking the knee...it is therefore tainted by those arses
I don't think the English flag racist and often fly it during tournaments. I just respect the English players too in their statements about racist abuse.
I would be grateful if you would not misrepresent my views on these things. It doesn't help discussion when you attribute to me beliefs that I do not hold.
I did not say you specifically I said people like you meaning the progressive left and sorry yes a lot of them do regard the english flag as racist.
Certainly not me, nor the many England fans who applaud the the knee. I don't think England fans are more racist than others, indeed the opposite. It is much more of an issue in other countries. Clearly it is still a problem for our players though.
Racism is bad I make no buts about that. I can't stand it personally and I always try to judge people on what they do. Having said that I do see taking the knee as divisive and would certainly boo it because I don't think it unites us but divides us.
The only division is between racists and non-racists. And it is clear what side you are on.
I disagree. The further division is wether you see taking the knee as either political or a form of religious practice you vehemently disagree with.
Taking the knee can mean so many different things To different people, because it was born out of these different things. So insisting it means only the one thing is wrong.
I am not talking about taking the knee. The division is between those who think it is appropriate to boo black footballers who are protesting racism and those who do not.
Where did I say I would boo footballers because they are black. I will boo taking the knee whether you are white , black or green with yellow spots. I boo the gesture not the person doing it.
Labour has said the government should end the consideration of academic qualifications for civil service jobs apart from where directly related to the post, to end the “snobbery” over degrees.
Labour’s deputy leader, Angela Rayner, said degrees and A-levels should only be taken into account where they are a genuine occupational requirement, such as science qualifications.
So twenty years of pushing degrees as an end in themselves (notionally to develop an educated workforce well placed for the workforce of the future) with costs increasingly passed on to students who pursue them (starting right from the initial £1,000 fees back in 1998) on the basis of the “lifetime graduate premium”, and now all to be treated equally because it’s all “snobbery”!
Isn't that much the same perennial argument that we see here, that many degrees are pointless and no substitute for on the job training? That they are just an entrance ticket to a white collar career?
Glad to see her make the case.
Except her solution is baby out with the bathwater....to mandidate you shouldn't take into account say a candidate got a double first from Cambridge in English is stupid.
That's quite different from saying we are opening a track into entry level.positions where a degree isn't automatically required and lots of training will be given is a different kettle of fish.
It is the middle-class finishing school argument. Why should an English degree count for more or less than a Geography degree, if neither is needed for the job? At best, it is a proxy for intelligence or dedication. (The funny thing is that these arguments lurch from right to left wing and back again.)
I would hope.people doing both of those types of degrees had learned some very valuable skills applicable to a wide range of jobs. Its not the be all and end all, but to graduate say top of your class in an established subject from a world class university requires a combination of intelligence and dedication. So to just say we don't consider that at all is ridiculous. It pertinent information.
The logical conclusion the other way is actually we only need about 20 universities who only teach STEM, because everything else is pointless, we just train everybody on the job at night school.
The flaw in the logic of this post is Richard Burgon.
Edit - it does of course also apply in a wider sense to Boris Johnson, but Burgon was the one who read English at Cambridge.
I am convinced there is another Richard Burgon somewhere with the same Birthday....who can't work out how he didn't get in...
I think Boris is the classic of example of somebody who is fairly bright and got a way with words, and probably ahead of the curve up to 18, but then hit the reality when he got to university of there being far brighter people who worked much harder and thus didn't get a top degree classification.
And hence why it is useful to take into consideration everything. Its clear the arc of Johnson's educational abilities went like Israel's vaccine rollout.
Okay team I think you've got my point. This vaccine was rushed. Everyone saying oh it wasn't vaccines have been around for ages it's just that the approval process was truncated or it was just emergency authorisation or ..
The people who developed and authorised it have been proudly proclaiming how quick the process has been.
But whatever...it's a small step from there to say, as plenty are on here right now, that it should be compulsory.
And still you don't get it.
Your opinion is that it was rushed, but while it has been done swiftly, precisely zero corners have been cut with regard to safety. What has not been done, in your opinion? How long ‘should’ it take?
No idea.
I just googled vaccine trial length and the first result has this to start:
"Vaccine development is a long, complex process, often lasting 10-15 years and involving a combination of public and private involvement."
Except in pandemics. They did much the same during the East African ebola outbreak, they can now control it with ring vaccination
I googled timeline of Ebola vaccine.
"The period of 5 years from the start of Phase 1 trials in Oct 2014 to the approval of this vaccine in Nov 2019, was much faster than the typical 10–15 year timeline for vaccine development and approval4. A timeline of the key activities in the development of this Ebola vaccine is summarized in Fig."
Because the whole world didn't drop everything and prioritise Ebola.
Exactly. We rushed it.
Which steps were abbreviated or missed out, in the process of producing the COVID vaccines? Put up or....
No idea. Ask the scientists who have been involved and who have trumpeted the unprecedented speed of the vaccine effort. Consider also the usual vaccine development timeframe of 10-15 years and the accelerated Ebola vaccine timeframe of five years.
So, shit posting. Got it.
If you are interested in facts, there are plenty of examples of shortening schedules, without ignoring steps, by orders of magnitude, in various fields.
It's remarkable what you can do, when you tell the committee to select the biscuits for the committee meeting to decide on who should chair the meeting on deciding something worthwhile.... to go jump in a lake.
I guess we rushed the development of the Spitfire.
He has absolutely nailed it here. Describes almost every avid Remainer I know (as in know on the internet)
"Here in Britain, Labour is lumped in with a “big blob” of its own. Too often a loud part of that blob sounds like either a select priesthood, speaking to itself about questions that would strike most people as abstract angels-on-a-pinhead theology, or a self-appointed police force dispensing constant, scolding judgment, wagging its finger at the latest supposed infraction of progressive standards. It’s exhausting and so unappealing that even a serially dishonest and incompetent government – but one that seems to accept you, your country and your way of life without pursed-lipped judgment – seems preferable by comparison."
Reading the grauniad comments I am struck by the wide division between those who accept the article has validity and those who absolutely refuse their reality. It rather makes Mr. Freedlands point for him.
There was a similar article in Unherd a couple of days ago, which concluded with a similar point: People will often put up with being ruled by people who cheat them, or lie to them, or who mismanage the country - as recent polls illustrate. But they won't put up with being ruled by people who openly despise them. https://unherd.com/2021/06/the-self-loathing-of-britains-elites/
Yes, I think that does explain the C and A result, people won't vote for those that despise them.
The C&A result is an ancient type of byelection result, with little evidence that it is about being despised and loads of evidence that it's about how to vote at byelections. Massive anti governments swings are common where the circumstances are right, and are usually altered back over time or by the next election. The new trend is the government winning against the opposition. The Tories are in with a chance (less chance than the bookies say) with this yet again.
The collapse of the non big urban (London) blue wall is massively overstated. Look at the map as a whole rather than a few interesting cases.
Freedland is excellent but still manages to take for granted that Labour is the right answer to the progressive cause. Maybe it isn't. Maybe the Tories are the most progressive party around.
If Labour stood where the Tories stand about the aspirational middling sort I would vote for them in GEs as I do in local elections. But nationally they are a crowd of uncommunicating enclaves of special interest groups who patronise people like me.
The Tories aren't progressive. And that isn't what the WWC red wallers want. They actively sought and voted for regressive politics. They're not booing the England team taking the knee because they want progressive politics.
Nice try, but you may be making some assumptions about what progress is about that aren't shared by the middling sort. Some people think virtue signalling is never progressive, but helping and supporting people is.
So what help and support for the victims of racism do the boo-ers engage in?
If you believe blm is divisive and does more to promote racial disharmony than the problems it purports to fix then showing your contempt for it is the positive thing to do.
Before you whine on about taking the knee isn't connected to blm remember people like you claim the england flag is associated with racism because people like the bnp use it. BLM use taking the knee...it is therefore tainted by those arses
I don't think the English flag racist and often fly it during tournaments. I just respect the English players too in their statements about racist abuse.
I would be grateful if you would not misrepresent my views on these things. It doesn't help discussion when you attribute to me beliefs that I do not hold.
I did not say you specifically I said people like you meaning the progressive left and sorry yes a lot of them do regard the english flag as racist.
Certainly not me, nor the many England fans who applaud the the knee. I don't think England fans are more racist than others, indeed the opposite. It is much more of an issue in other countries. Clearly it is still a problem for our players though.
Racism is bad I make no buts about that. I can't stand it personally and I always try to judge people on what they do. Having said that I do see taking the knee as divisive and would certainly boo it because I don't think it unites us but divides us.
The only division is between racists and non-racists. And it is clear what side you are on.
I disagree. The further division is wether you see taking the knee as either political or a form of religious practice you vehemently disagree with.
Taking the knee can mean so many different things To different people, because it was born out of these different things. So insisting it means only the one thing is wrong.
I am not talking about taking the knee. The division is between those who think it is appropriate to boo black footballers who are protesting racism and those who do not.
Where did I say I would boo footballers because they are black. I will boo taking the knee whether you are white , black or green with yellow spots. I boo the gesture not the person doing it.
"Having said that I do see taking the knee as divisive and would certainly boo it" Seems clear to me that you would be quite happy to boo the English football team.
Labour has said the government should end the consideration of academic qualifications for civil service jobs apart from where directly related to the post, to end the “snobbery” over degrees.
Labour’s deputy leader, Angela Rayner, said degrees and A-levels should only be taken into account where they are a genuine occupational requirement, such as science qualifications.
So twenty years of pushing degrees as an end in themselves (notionally to develop an educated workforce well placed for the workforce of the future) with costs increasingly passed on to students who pursue them (starting right from the initial £1,000 fees back in 1998) on the basis of the “lifetime graduate premium”, and now all to be treated equally because it’s all “snobbery”!
Isn't that much the same perennial argument that we see here, that many degrees are pointless and no substitute for on the job training? That they are just an entrance ticket to a white collar career?
Glad to see her make the case.
Except her solution is baby out with the bathwater....to mandidate you shouldn't take into account say a candidate got a double first from Cambridge in English is stupid.
That's quite different from saying we are opening a track into entry level.positions where a degree isn't automatically required and lots of training will be given is a different kettle of fish.
It is the middle-class finishing school argument. Why should an English degree count for more or less than a Geography degree, if neither is needed for the job? At best, it is a proxy for intelligence or dedication. (The funny thing is that these arguments lurch from right to left wing and back again.)
I would hope.people doing both of those types of degrees had learned some very valuable skills applicable to a wide range of jobs. Its not the be all and end all, but to graduate say top of your class in an established subject from a world class university requires a combination of intelligence and dedication. So to just say we don't consider that at all is ridiculous. It pertinent information.
The logical conclusion the other way is actually we only need about 20 universities who only teach STEM, because everything else is pointless, we just train everybody on the job at night school.
An established subject? English was the media studies of the late nineteenth century.
STEM only universities? Take that thought and apply it to secondary schools. Maybe schools should teach everyone IT – word processing, spreadsheets, building web sites and so on – and cooking and electrics and basic nursing and so on. But what to drop in order to make room for these new subjects?
That was my.point....if degree are pointless as they won't be taken into consideration other than science specific roles (that's Angela Rayner position) for jobs, don't need many unis or degrees.
Which is exactly the point. Many jobs that ask for degrees now used to ask for o levels or a levels and really dont require a degree. However now we are sending 50% to uni they can ask for a degree even though not necessary and have a good chance of getting someone even though that person will do actually no better than someone with just o levels or a levels because the job doesn't really require one.
I am not arguing that the massive expansion in uni sector was necessarily a good thing and that 50% need to go to there. I have long advocated for on job training, part time study via equivalent of US community college. I think we should have a much more mixed model than really the current far too binary system.
My point was Raymer absolutist statement, which taken to logical conclusion means it pretty pointless to outside a small niche segment of degrees.
We need two forms of uni...academic and vocational in my view . In fact should go down to sixth form level. Teach people skills like plumbing, bricklaying , electrician. With lessons added on how to run a small business as well.
My son went to uni and got a first and an msc in biochemistry. When he was applying I had a long talk with him and told him he should only go if he wanted to and there was no lack of status in being a plumber etc. After getting his Msc he turned round to me and said "I should have listened to you" He now has a 50k debt and has no wish to go into anything regarding his chosen field because he prefers to work with his hands
It’s a bit like driving across a busy city in rush hour. Normally you spend lots of time waiting at traffic lights, but when you have a police escort, you can take the same journey and get to the same place, just as safely, but faster.
The result has been faster vaccine development than we’ve ever seen, but without cutting back on testing and safety measures.
Brilliant. They rushed it and it's all safe and we should all be happy.
I'm not entirely sure why it is that you've chosen this particular hill to die on. The difference between a task being sped up by the allocation of extra resource and a task being done in haste seems quite clear.
If a machine is repaired in ten hours by one mechanic or in five hours by two, the end result isn't necessarily going to be any different. It's just going to be arrived at more rapidly in the latter instance, that's all.
Yep I'm sure. We rushed the vaccine oh sorry we shortened the schedule of the vaccine and thank goodness we did.
We have also already had vaccine refusers likened to criminals.
We are all desperate to get back to "normal". But can you see what we are giving up in terms of our tolerance and accepting in terms of our mindset in return.
We're not quite at burn the witch levels but give it time.
Unfortunately this is always going to happen when the rights of two groups butt up against each other. A lot of people are afraid that the obstinacy of the anti-vaxxers is going to be used as a pretext by the Zero Covidian scientists to demand that restrictions remain in place indefinitely, and that this tactic may work because the Government is weak.
Let's see what happens next. If we finally get out of the cycle of pernicious rules and lockdowns then everyone will soon forget about the refusers and let them take their chances. But if they're used as the excuse for continuing to bully the rest of the population then the calls for compulsion and punishment will quickly escalate. It's inevitable.
He has absolutely nailed it here. Describes almost every avid Remainer I know (as in know on the internet)
"Here in Britain, Labour is lumped in with a “big blob” of its own. Too often a loud part of that blob sounds like either a select priesthood, speaking to itself about questions that would strike most people as abstract angels-on-a-pinhead theology, or a self-appointed police force dispensing constant, scolding judgment, wagging its finger at the latest supposed infraction of progressive standards. It’s exhausting and so unappealing that even a serially dishonest and incompetent government – but one that seems to accept you, your country and your way of life without pursed-lipped judgment – seems preferable by comparison."
Reading the grauniad comments I am struck by the wide division between those who accept the article has validity and those who absolutely refuse their reality. It rather makes Mr. Freedlands point for him.
There was a similar article in Unherd a couple of days ago, which concluded with a similar point: People will often put up with being ruled by people who cheat them, or lie to them, or who mismanage the country - as recent polls illustrate. But they won't put up with being ruled by people who openly despise them. https://unherd.com/2021/06/the-self-loathing-of-britains-elites/
Yes, I think that does explain the C and A result, people won't vote for those that despise them.
The C&A result is an ancient type of byelection result, with little evidence that it is about being despised and loads of evidence that it's about how to vote at byelections. Massive anti governments swings are common where the circumstances are right, and are usually altered back over time or by the next election. The new trend is the government winning against the opposition. The Tories are in with a chance (less chance than the bookies say) with this yet again.
The collapse of the non big urban (London) blue wall is massively overstated. Look at the map as a whole rather than a few interesting cases.
Freedland is excellent but still manages to take for granted that Labour is the right answer to the progressive cause. Maybe it isn't. Maybe the Tories are the most progressive party around.
If Labour stood where the Tories stand about the aspirational middling sort I would vote for them in GEs as I do in local elections. But nationally they are a crowd of uncommunicating enclaves of special interest groups who patronise people like me.
The Tories aren't progressive. And that isn't what the WWC red wallers want. They actively sought and voted for regressive politics. They're not booing the England team taking the knee because they want progressive politics.
Nice try, but you may be making some assumptions about what progress is about that aren't shared by the middling sort. Some people think virtue signalling is never progressive, but helping and supporting people is.
So what help and support for the victims of racism do the boo-ers engage in?
If you believe blm is divisive and does more to promote racial disharmony than the problems it purports to fix then showing your contempt for it is the positive thing to do.
Before you whine on about taking the knee isn't connected to blm remember people like you claim the england flag is associated with racism because people like the bnp use it. BLM use taking the knee...it is therefore tainted by those arses
I don't think the English flag racist and often fly it during tournaments. I just respect the English players too in their statements about racist abuse.
I would be grateful if you would not misrepresent my views on these things. It doesn't help discussion when you attribute to me beliefs that I do not hold.
I did not say you specifically I said people like you meaning the progressive left and sorry yes a lot of them do regard the english flag as racist.
Certainly not me, nor the many England fans who applaud the the knee. I don't think England fans are more racist than others, indeed the opposite. It is much more of an issue in other countries. Clearly it is still a problem for our players though.
Racism is bad I make no buts about that. I can't stand it personally and I always try to judge people on what they do. Having said that I do see taking the knee as divisive and would certainly boo it because I don't think it unites us but divides us.
The only division is between racists and non-racists. And it is clear what side you are on.
I disagree. The further division is wether you see taking the knee as either political or a form of religious practice you vehemently disagree with.
Taking the knee can mean so many different things To different people, because it was born out of these different things. So insisting it means only the one thing is wrong.
I am not talking about taking the knee. The division is between those who think it is appropriate to boo black footballers who are protesting racism and those who do not.
They are protesting racism by utilising Martin Luther King’s kneeling and some throw in a power salute when doing it. Only a fascist would insist it’s solely about the fight for racial equality and everyone must applaud it.
He has absolutely nailed it here. Describes almost every avid Remainer I know (as in know on the internet)
"Here in Britain, Labour is lumped in with a “big blob” of its own. Too often a loud part of that blob sounds like either a select priesthood, speaking to itself about questions that would strike most people as abstract angels-on-a-pinhead theology, or a self-appointed police force dispensing constant, scolding judgment, wagging its finger at the latest supposed infraction of progressive standards. It’s exhausting and so unappealing that even a serially dishonest and incompetent government – but one that seems to accept you, your country and your way of life without pursed-lipped judgment – seems preferable by comparison."
Reading the grauniad comments I am struck by the wide division between those who accept the article has validity and those who absolutely refuse their reality. It rather makes Mr. Freedlands point for him.
There was a similar article in Unherd a couple of days ago, which concluded with a similar point: People will often put up with being ruled by people who cheat them, or lie to them, or who mismanage the country - as recent polls illustrate. But they won't put up with being ruled by people who openly despise them. https://unherd.com/2021/06/the-self-loathing-of-britains-elites/
Yes, I think that does explain the C and A result, people won't vote for those that despise them.
The C&A result is an ancient type of byelection result, with little evidence that it is about being despised and loads of evidence that it's about how to vote at byelections. Massive anti governments swings are common where the circumstances are right, and are usually altered back over time or by the next election. The new trend is the government winning against the opposition. The Tories are in with a chance (less chance than the bookies say) with this yet again.
The collapse of the non big urban (London) blue wall is massively overstated. Look at the map as a whole rather than a few interesting cases.
Freedland is excellent but still manages to take for granted that Labour is the right answer to the progressive cause. Maybe it isn't. Maybe the Tories are the most progressive party around.
If Labour stood where the Tories stand about the aspirational middling sort I would vote for them in GEs as I do in local elections. But nationally they are a crowd of uncommunicating enclaves of special interest groups who patronise people like me.
The Tories aren't progressive. And that isn't what the WWC red wallers want. They actively sought and voted for regressive politics. They're not booing the England team taking the knee because they want progressive politics.
Nice try, but you may be making some assumptions about what progress is about that aren't shared by the middling sort. Some people think virtue signalling is never progressive, but helping and supporting people is.
So what help and support for the victims of racism do the boo-ers engage in?
If you believe blm is divisive and does more to promote racial disharmony than the problems it purports to fix then showing your contempt for it is the positive thing to do.
Before you whine on about taking the knee isn't connected to blm remember people like you claim the england flag is associated with racism because people like the bnp use it. BLM use taking the knee...it is therefore tainted by those arses
I don't think the English flag racist and often fly it during tournaments. I just respect the English players too in their statements about racist abuse.
I would be grateful if you would not misrepresent my views on these things. It doesn't help discussion when you attribute to me beliefs that I do not hold.
I did not say you specifically I said people like you meaning the progressive left and sorry yes a lot of them do regard the english flag as racist.
Certainly not me, nor the many England fans who applaud the the knee. I don't think England fans are more racist than others, indeed the opposite. It is much more of an issue in other countries. Clearly it is still a problem for our players though.
Racism is bad I make no buts about that. I can't stand it personally and I always try to judge people on what they do. Having said that I do see taking the knee as divisive and would certainly boo it because I don't think it unites us but divides us.
The only division is between racists and non-racists. And it is clear what side you are on.
I disagree. The further division is wether you see taking the knee as either political or a form of religious practice you vehemently disagree with.
Taking the knee can mean so many different things To different people, because it was born out of these different things. So insisting it means only the one thing is wrong.
I am not talking about taking the knee. The division is between those who think it is appropriate to boo black footballers who are protesting racism and those who do not.
Where did I say I would boo footballers because they are black. I will boo taking the knee whether you are white , black or green with yellow spots. I boo the gesture not the person doing it.
"Having said that I do see taking the knee as divisive and would certainly boo it" Seems clear to me that you would be quite happy to boo the English football team.
Why would I not boo the english football team? Not my country
Labour has said the government should end the consideration of academic qualifications for civil service jobs apart from where directly related to the post, to end the “snobbery” over degrees.
Labour’s deputy leader, Angela Rayner, said degrees and A-levels should only be taken into account where they are a genuine occupational requirement, such as science qualifications.
So twenty years of pushing degrees as an end in themselves (notionally to develop an educated workforce well placed for the workforce of the future) with costs increasingly passed on to students who pursue them (starting right from the initial £1,000 fees back in 1998) on the basis of the “lifetime graduate premium”, and now all to be treated equally because it’s all “snobbery”!
Isn't that much the same perennial argument that we see here, that many degrees are pointless and no substitute for on the job training? That they are just an entrance ticket to a white collar career?
Glad to see her make the case.
Except her solution is baby out with the bathwater....to mandidate you shouldn't take into account say a candidate got a double first from Cambridge in English is stupid.
That's quite different from saying we are opening a track into entry level.positions where a degree isn't automatically required and lots of training will be given is a different kettle of fish.
It is the middle-class finishing school argument. Why should an English degree count for more or less than a Geography degree, if neither is needed for the job? At best, it is a proxy for intelligence or dedication. (The funny thing is that these arguments lurch from right to left wing and back again.)
I would hope.people doing both of those types of degrees had learned some very valuable skills applicable to a wide range of jobs. Its not the be all and end all, but to graduate say top of your class in an established subject from a world class university requires a combination of intelligence and dedication. So to just say we don't consider that at all is ridiculous. It pertinent information.
The logical conclusion the other way is actually we only need about 20 universities who only teach STEM, because everything else is pointless, we just train everybody on the job at night school.
An established subject? English was the media studies of the late nineteenth century.
STEM only universities? Take that thought and apply it to secondary schools. Maybe schools should teach everyone IT – word processing, spreadsheets, building web sites and so on – and cooking and electrics and basic nursing and so on. But what to drop in order to make room for these new subjects?
That was my.point....if degree are pointless as they won't be taken into consideration other than science specific roles (that's Angela Rayner position) for jobs, don't need many unis or degrees.
Which is exactly the point. Many jobs that ask for degrees now used to ask for o levels or a levels and really dont require a degree. However now we are sending 50% to uni they can ask for a degree even though not necessary and have a good chance of getting someone even though that person will do actually no better than someone with just o levels or a levels because the job doesn't really require one.
I am not arguing that the massive expansion in uni sector was necessarily a good thing and that 50% need to go to there. I have long advocated for on job training, part time study via equivalent of US community college. I think we should have a much more mixed model than really the current far too binary system.
My point was Raymer absolutist statement, which taken to logical conclusion means it pretty pointless to outside a small niche segment of degrees.
We need two forms of uni...academic and vocational in my view . In fact should go down to sixth form level. Teach people skills like plumbing, bricklaying , electrician. With lessons added on how to run a small business as well.
My son went to uni and got a first and an msc in biochemistry. When he was applying I had a long talk with him and told him he should only go if he wanted to and there was no lack of status in being a plumber etc. After getting his Msc he turned round to me and said "I should have listened to you" He now has a 50k debt and has no wish to go into anything regarding his chosen field because he prefers to work with his hands
Vocational unis are basically what US Community Colleges are.
Labour has said the government should end the consideration of academic qualifications for civil service jobs apart from where directly related to the post, to end the “snobbery” over degrees.
Labour’s deputy leader, Angela Rayner, said degrees and A-levels should only be taken into account where they are a genuine occupational requirement, such as science qualifications.
So twenty years of pushing degrees as an end in themselves (notionally to develop an educated workforce well placed for the workforce of the future) with costs increasingly passed on to students who pursue them (starting right from the initial £1,000 fees back in 1998) on the basis of the “lifetime graduate premium”, and now all to be treated equally because it’s all “snobbery”!
Isn't that much the same perennial argument that we see here, that many degrees are pointless and no substitute for on the job training? That they are just an entrance ticket to a white collar career?
Glad to see her make the case.
Civil Service has always had entry level jobs and “on the job” training.
Yes, but the Fast Stream (the officer class of the Civil Service) is recruited by examination. There is no need to require a degree, just a good score.
EDIT: Just re-read your comment and realise that you were suggesting that they could get rid of that requirement. Cold day in Hell, etc. etc.
I do have quite strong anti-education sentiments for someone who works in education! Indeed I think that the abolition of universities may well be on balance a good thing.
That has to be one of the most idiotic things I think you have ever posted.
Yes, perhaps it is, but on the other hand such a radical devil's advocate position does generate real discussion of what we* want from universities, or indeed wider education. I might try to work my abolition idea up into a header if I get a quiet weekend.
*and who is "we" in this context? Is it students, faculty, parents, government, wider society?
Looks like a wave form to me. I pray thanks to,vaccine it can be so much smaller than previous. But experts who say that ain’t a wave do have to explain how something that looks like a wave isn’t
He has absolutely nailed it here. Describes almost every avid Remainer I know (as in know on the internet)
"Here in Britain, Labour is lumped in with a “big blob” of its own. Too often a loud part of that blob sounds like either a select priesthood, speaking to itself about questions that would strike most people as abstract angels-on-a-pinhead theology, or a self-appointed police force dispensing constant, scolding judgment, wagging its finger at the latest supposed infraction of progressive standards. It’s exhausting and so unappealing that even a serially dishonest and incompetent government – but one that seems to accept you, your country and your way of life without pursed-lipped judgment – seems preferable by comparison."
Reading the grauniad comments I am struck by the wide division between those who accept the article has validity and those who absolutely refuse their reality. It rather makes Mr. Freedlands point for him.
There was a similar article in Unherd a couple of days ago, which concluded with a similar point: People will often put up with being ruled by people who cheat them, or lie to them, or who mismanage the country - as recent polls illustrate. But they won't put up with being ruled by people who openly despise them. https://unherd.com/2021/06/the-self-loathing-of-britains-elites/
Yes, I think that does explain the C and A result, people won't vote for those that despise them.
The C&A result is an ancient type of byelection result, with little evidence that it is about being despised and loads of evidence that it's about how to vote at byelections. Massive anti governments swings are common where the circumstances are right, and are usually altered back over time or by the next election. The new trend is the government winning against the opposition. The Tories are in with a chance (less chance than the bookies say) with this yet again.
The collapse of the non big urban (London) blue wall is massively overstated. Look at the map as a whole rather than a few interesting cases.
Freedland is excellent but still manages to take for granted that Labour is the right answer to the progressive cause. Maybe it isn't. Maybe the Tories are the most progressive party around.
If Labour stood where the Tories stand about the aspirational middling sort I would vote for them in GEs as I do in local elections. But nationally they are a crowd of uncommunicating enclaves of special interest groups who patronise people like me.
The Tories aren't progressive. And that isn't what the WWC red wallers want. They actively sought and voted for regressive politics. They're not booing the England team taking the knee because they want progressive politics.
Nice try, but you may be making some assumptions about what progress is about that aren't shared by the middling sort. Some people think virtue signalling is never progressive, but helping and supporting people is.
So what help and support for the victims of racism do the boo-ers engage in?
If you believe blm is divisive and does more to promote racial disharmony than the problems it purports to fix then showing your contempt for it is the positive thing to do.
Before you whine on about taking the knee isn't connected to blm remember people like you claim the england flag is associated with racism because people like the bnp use it. BLM use taking the knee...it is therefore tainted by those arses
I don't think the English flag racist and often fly it during tournaments. I just respect the English players too in their statements about racist abuse.
I would be grateful if you would not misrepresent my views on these things. It doesn't help discussion when you attribute to me beliefs that I do not hold.
I did not say you specifically I said people like you meaning the progressive left and sorry yes a lot of them do regard the english flag as racist.
Certainly not me, nor the many England fans who applaud the the knee. I don't think England fans are more racist than others, indeed the opposite. It is much more of an issue in other countries. Clearly it is still a problem for our players though.
Racism is bad I make no buts about that. I can't stand it personally and I always try to judge people on what they do. Having said that I do see taking the knee as divisive and would certainly boo it because I don't think it unites us but divides us.
The reason taking the knee is booed is the perception of the supporters that they are being targeted as racists by those who they cheer and pay the wages of. I suspect if it is taken into next season the booing will get worse.
Comments
Glad to see her make the case.
Edit: although slightly scary that you appear to be moving towards equating vaccine refusal with committing a crime.
Once we are there we should have no more compulsory testing, restrictions or mask wearing outside of clinical conditions or places such as care homes.
I'd have thought, as a liberal, you'd appreciate the need to remove these measures as soon as everyone has had the chance to be vaccinated.
That's quite different from saying we are opening a track into entry level.positions where a degree isn't automatically required and lots of training will be given is a different kettle of fish.
You will have me weeping for the poor anti-vax "victims" in a minute. Soulld we start lighting candles for them?
As far as I am concerned they can just be left to it and long as they don't expect to push ahead of everyone else in the NHS queue when they get sick.
https://wellcome.org/news/quick-safe-covid-vaccine-development
I think that the anti-vaxxers are more likely to make themselves heard - like contrarian, they feel they're standing up for a principle. Most people just have the jab when they're invited to do so, and see nothing special to boast about.
Processes of paperwork that usually happen in series, were done in parallel with huge teams from both the manufacturers and regulators, especially in the US and UK.
The result has been faster vaccine development than we’ve ever seen, but without cutting back on testing and safety measures.
It can’t simply be put down to the gullible and “useful idiots”. A lot of these people only get sucked in because they start off sceptical but start doing their own “research”. And find there’s a whole industry out there designed to reinforce the original far fetched theories with whole independent areas of “information” to win people over through sheer volumes of evidence that “can’t be easily dismissed”
The civil service doesn't ask candidates to say what university they went to - they think all degrees are equal. So they might as well not care about degrees at all, in my opinion.
Barriers can be got over, if it takes more work than average so be it, but unfortunately there are too many of the 'privileged' that support the claims of those that claim to be hard done by because of someone or something else. Why bother trying when you are being told its always something else responsible for your lack of achievement?
If you are interested in facts, there are plenty of examples of shortening schedules, without ignoring steps, by orders of magnitude, in various fields.
It's remarkable what you can do, when you tell the committee to select the biscuits for the committee meeting to decide on who should chair the meeting on deciding something worthwhile.... to go jump in a lake.
This timeframe involved doing steps in parallel with money no object and no stops for fundraising.
Finally, thank you.
https://www.faststream.gov.uk/faqs/index.html
EDIT: Just re-read your comment and realise that you were suggesting that they could get rid of that requirement. Cold day in Hell, etc. etc.
The Spitfire was a very, very rushed job to build a 350mph rapid climb, point interceptor, when it became clear that war might start before 1941 and the arrival of the planned 400mph+ fighters.
We can all agree that it was rushed. Or rather, it was on a shortened schedule. Happy to use that term in future if it helps keep the blood pressure down.
It’s certainly true that the economics of a degree vs earnings potential no longer hold for a lot of degrees at a lot of universities, and that people should think carefully about not spending three or four years getting drunk and in £50k of debt, unless they dramatically improve their career prospects as a result. Removing degree mandates for the CS and many public-sector roles (nursing and police spring to mind) is a good starting point.
The logical conclusion the other way is actually we only need about 20 universities who only teach STEM, because everything else is pointless, we just train everybody on the job at night school.
If a machine is repaired in ten hours by one mechanic or in five hours by two, the end result isn't necessarily going to be any different. It's just going to be arrived at more rapidly in the latter instance, that's all.
And we are all on the same page. Good.
https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20210620-liveblog-first-polls-close-in-french-regional-elections-marred-by-low-turnout
France went to the polls Sunday in the first round of regional elections, which are seen as a bellwether for next year’s all-important presidential contest but which largely failed to mobilise voters – polls estimated the abstention rate at more than 66 percent. Follow our liveblog below for results and analysis.
Les Républicains, the conservative party revamped by former president Nicolas Sarkozy, appear to be largely in the lead, ahead of both Marine Le Pen’s far-right National Rally (RN) and parties of the centre and left.
Exit polls showed Les Républicains beating Le Pen’s RN into second place in the northern Hauts-de-France region. President Emmanuel Macron’s ruling LREM (La République en marche) party is at risk of failing to reach the 10 percent threshold to qualify for the second round.
Le Pen’s National Rally led in the Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur region near Marseille, with the incumbent Les Républicains in second place, according to exit polls.
Voters are also choosing councillors to run France’s more than 100 départements, another layer of local government.
The elections, which follow a gruelling year and a half of lockdowns and curfews, look set to be marred by record-low turnout of between 66 and 68 percent, according to polls. A second round of voting will take place on June 27.
In my youth he was a Lib Dem activist and even stood as a council candidate in the late 80s. He was pro Brexit and his descent into lunacy began there. I'm not correlating Brexit with anti vaxx but I do think that it was responsible for his entry into a certain echo chamber. All that elite Brexit betrayal rhetoric can exact a price for some people.
Processes done in parallel with massive resources, rather than shortcuts taken to get a fast result.
We have also already had vaccine refusers likened to criminals.
We are all desperate to get back to "normal". But can you see what we are giving up in terms of our tolerance and accepting in terms of our mindset in return.
We're not quite at burn the witch levels but give it time.
Classic.
Happy?
More than that we can't say right now.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/rushed
acting or done with excessive or careless speed
STEM only universities? Take that thought and apply it to secondary schools. Maybe schools should teach everyone IT – word processing, spreadsheets, building web sites and so on – and cooking and electrics and basic nursing and so on. But what to drop in order to make room for these new subjects?
Vs the usual 10-15 years.
Hence still whatever the fuck word you want to use it is sane to refuse it.
Bonne soirée.
To win elections in England you need to be committed to strong defence, NATO, USA, and to keeping out of other people's wars until we are directly threatened. Getting that wrong finished Blair, and but for parliament would have finished off Cameron.
Among the unsung virtues of Boris Trump and Biden share this curiously so far) is his lack of desire to create needless widows and orphans by invading a medium sized middle eastern country. A policy which, as the Good Book says, covers a multitude of sins.
Taking the knee can mean so many different things To different people, because it was born out of these different things. So insisting it means only the one thing is wrong.
All the steps were done properly. Just because we didn't spend time stopped at red lights doesn't mean that there was anything excessive about it.
Edit - it does of course also apply in a wider sense to Boris Johnson, but Burgon was the one who read English at Cambridge.
My point was Raymer absolutist statement, which taken to logical conclusion means it pretty pointless to outside a small niche segment of degrees.
I think Boris is the classic of example of somebody who is fairly bright and got a way with words, and probably ahead of the curve up to 18, but then hit the reality when he got to university of there being far brighter people who worked much harder and thus didn't get a top degree classification.
And hence why it is useful to take into consideration everything. Its clear the arc of Johnson's educational abilities went like Israel's vaccine rollout.
Seems clear to me that you would be quite happy to boo the English football team.
My son went to uni and got a first and an msc in biochemistry. When he was applying I had a long talk with him and told him he should only go if he wanted to and there was no lack of status in being a plumber etc. After getting his Msc he turned round to me and said "I should have listened to you" He now has a 50k debt and has no wish to go into anything regarding his chosen field because he prefers to work with his hands
Let's see what happens next. If we finally get out of the cycle of pernicious rules and lockdowns then everyone will soon forget about the refusers and let them take their chances. But if they're used as the excuse for continuing to bully the rest of the population then the calls for compulsion and punishment will quickly escalate. It's inevitable.
*and who is "we" in this context? Is it students, faculty, parents, government, wider society?