The thing I find strange is how closely the Cummings situation parallels the ‘Stop the Coup’ issue. Govt does something supposedly beyond the pale, media firestorm commences, govt doesn’t back down baffling the expectations of the majority of pundits, all and sundry firmly conclude that Boris / Cummings et al are finished as a political force.
Whatever else the current saga has done, it has thoroughly distracted from the government’s real failings in handling Covid-19 - whether you think those failings are ‘reasonable’ or not.
Well said. We literally went through this exact same thing barely 8 months ago. Boris and Cummings were indeed 'finished' then too, according to the conventional wisdom of many, including on here.
I refer you to the fact that I predicted this outcome from Day 1. If it were up to me, the story would have died there, but it has received such fanatical media attention, not to mention 50 squillion consecutive headers on here, until this one, that I don't feel the slightest bit bad about rubbing it in.
Give it a rest will you. You’re so boring and add nothing to the discussion.
If being right from the moment the story broke is nothing, then I compare very favourably to those who contributed less than nothing
Starmer's big idea is a Bill of Attainder against Cummings? 'Cos that's never been used as a tool of autocrats and won't look like a partisan witch-hunt at all!
Let him go ahead. As long as he realizes that he'll be declaring total war on a government with a landslide majority and zero fucks to give.
Hope it's worth it, Keir!
SKS isn't that stupid.
Agree - he's played this brilliantly from the start "never interrupt your enemy while he is making mistakes" - from a political point of view its better for Labour if Cummings stays - an eternal reminder of "one law for them, another for us". A more difficult calculus for SKS is what's in the national interest.....he may conclude "A Labour government from 2024" and find that coincides with what's best for Labour...
The smart move is to completely sideline the government and PM and make an appeal directly to the people about civic duty. Acknowledge that it's even more difficult to live by these rules because of the government's position on Cummings but make clear that they are still the right rules.
"Today I'm asking the people of the UK to continue observing the social distancing rules and to comply with contact tracers if they are asked to isolate. I know this is something that is even more difficult to do now than it was last week because of actions taken by the PM and Mr Cummings, but it is still the right thing to do. I believe that all of the people in the UK have an extraordinary capacity to do the right thing when asked. This doesn't mean we are letting the government or Mr Cummings off the hook and neither should you, but these actions by him should not be allowed to interfere with our ability to reopen the economy and keep our people and NHS safe from this virus."
That kind of statement makes Starmer the de facto PM and people will see him as PM material.
"Starmer the de facto PM"
Good job he leads a party in Parliament with a majority to pass legislation then. Oh...wait....
If he did what Max suggests he would be doing a great deal more good for the country than passing legislation.
Such as?
Did you not read what Max said? Did you reply to him without reading it?
Do keep up. Referring to this: "...doing a great deal more good for the country than passing legislation"
Not quite sure what you don't understand.
Clearly it is not worth discussing it with you if you can't appreciate how the statement Max drafted could not have a positive influence on peoples actions. Especially as the Govt's actions have clearly had the opposite effect.
And 'Do keep up' is just pathetic and childish.
I'm so sorry to disagree with you....it must hurt dearly.
I'm baffled how making a speech can be more (or less) beneficial than the authority and ability to draft, present and enact legislation - which is of course how we are governed. The only pathetic and childish thing is your appreciation of how we are actually governed.
Because no one is actually going to pay attention to anything the government says on this any more. It's already happening. The government hasn't got the moral authority to ask people to do the right thing any more. When you understand this point you will realise that even a majority of 200 wouldn't make a difference. The only way the government will get compliance now is to send in the police, and that's going to lose even more votes (which is why the decision was taken to make it a voluntary scheme).
So have you seen social distancing breaking down?
Yes, on a huge scale. I’m not saying it’s anything to do with Cummings, but it’s certainly happening.
“Social distancing” is bollocks anyway and is in no way sustainable.
Yesterday several Tories questioned the 2 metre distancing rule. I can see their point, and so did Johnson, in this instance he thought he was on to something. Isn't there a little of the give an inch take a mile argument. If you tell people to distance 2 metres, they will distance one metre. If you tell them one metre they just won't bother.
Out of the Nordic countries (Norway, Sweden, Denmark - with similar climates, culture, societies, economies, population densities, and physical connectivity, and healthcare quality - all the factors that feed into infectivity and death tolls):
Per capita death rates:
Economic impact forecast:
And Sweden were hoping to protect their care homes and elderly - which has completely failed. They were hoping to get sufficient herd immunity to protect against a second wave - and they're nowhere near.
And their death rate has plateaued around 60-70 per day (which would be around 400-500 per day scaled up to the UK).
If Norway did lock down too hard, then that means they've now got far more scope going forwards, and they erred on the side of saving a hell of a lot more lives and preserving their economies better, at the cost of a couple of difficult months. Best side on which to err, really.
Point of order, Denmarks population density is completely different to Norway and Sweden.
Norway 15 P/km2 Sweden 25 P/Km2 Denmark 137 P/Km2
Denmark is more densely populated than France or Spain for example.
Sweden doing so much worse than Denmark is a big problem for those who think lockdown wasnt important.
Very good point; my apologies. Denmark would have every excuse for being a lot worse hit than Sweden, all else being equal.
Need to be careful with raw population density figures. Urban density probably matters more. Vast swathes of nothingness won't prevent spread, an absence of mass public transport etc might.
Fair enough: we can see the distribution of density on the following map.
Denmark definitely looks more vulnerable than Sweden
Because it appears that Johnson cannot function without him.
This is the big takeout. I sense that Gove and Cummings are running the government with Johnson surplus to requirements.
I don't surplus to requirements is correct. Hors d 'combat may be.
A bit of a disadvantage when we're very much in the middle of said combat. A war-losing disadvantage possibly..
Its not ideal but trying to change the rider mid gallop might just be worse. The question remains whether Boris is permanently impaired by the virus or temporarily. No real evidence one way or the other at the moment.
We changed Prime Ministers during both world wars.
BJ more Asquith than Neville, especially in the trusting them to drive your daughter home stakes.
If I were feeling pedantic, I would point out that tweet might be considered technically incorrect. Neither David Lloyd George nor Arthur Balfour were Prime Minister for any of the elections they fought as leader of their party. Lloyd George led a group of independent Liberals In 1918, and although Wikipedia lumps them together as ‘a Party’ they did not amount to a party in any formal sense. By the time he became Liberal leader in 1926, he had been out of office for four years. In 1931 and 1935 the Lloyd George grouping was again hardly a party.
Balfour is an even more complicated case, because he became PM in 1902 and resigned in favour of the Leader of the Opposition in 1905, going on to fight (and lose) three general elections in 1906 and 1910 as Leader of the Opposition himself. However, he was First Lord of the Treasury and Leader of the Unionists in the Commons in 1900, and since peers were not supposed to campaign at the time he was effectively the PM for voting purposes.
So yes, it stacks up in reality as a claim. However, it’s just a little more complicated than that.
I refer you to the fact that I predicted this outcome from Day 1. If it were up to me, the story would have died there, but it has received such fanatical media attention, not to mention 50 squillion consecutive headers on here, until this one, that I don't feel the slightest bit bad about rubbing it in.
Not a prediction game, though. The discussion has been hardly at all about whether Cummings will go or not, it's about whether he is a lying little shit or not. You have the same problem as the dimmer warmists who defended those lying little shits at UEA, of not appreciating that not every hill is worth dying on. A more intelligent tory like, um, myself would recognize that Johnson's failure either to sack him or to enforce a swift admission, apology and offer of resignation) is the worst aspect of the whole matter.
Oh, there were many, many posters predicting that Cummings was gone, from the moment the story broke to last night, so I'm afraid that part is rather inaccurate.
As for choosing a hill to die on, I wouldn't have picked this one, but it should be obvious to any intelligent person that the stakes in this particular game were not those of any ordinary resignation. This was a direct attack on the Government's programme, its chief policy adviser, and on the PM himself. It was designed to reassert the media's authority to control government decision-making and direct the course of events.
As such, stopping them is worth any temporary polling hit. Now the next time the media cooks up a scandal out of nothing - and they will - the Government can defy them with ease because, after all, they threw everything they had at Cummings and still failed to unseat him.
Of course, if your only obsession is short-term popularity and not long-term strategic victory, I can see how an otherwise intelligent person might have come to your conclusions...
What is more short termist than answering every criticism with "we have a majority till 2024"?
Secondly, people aren't angry with Cummings because the papers tell them to be, but off their own bats on the basis of the agreed and admitted facts.
Thirdly, every attempt to sound clever and funny about this runs slap into the brick wall of the thousands of people saying "My spouse or parent died alone, because I obeyed the rules." Try running a "Does this make me look a complete and utter c--t?" test before posting.
To take your points in order:
1. I didn't mention that anywhere in my reply.
2. If you think the media didn't shape and massively amplify the public reaction, that is a rather naive view to take.
3. In case it wasn't clear by now, I've never moderated my political opinions to curry favour with anyone, let alone mildly-pompous randoms on the internet, and I don't intend to start now. The sad reality of personal losses doesn't somehow make the normal operation of politics irrelevant - as this episode has shown, it simply makes it all the more bitter and bad-tempered.
And a final suggestion, perhaps try actually answering my central point about the long-term strategic implications of why the government has chosen to fight this battle, rather than burying your lack of an answer in a mountain of moralizing froth?
Give up. You are striving after a kind of cynical knowingness which may or not represent your real stance. If you think minding about people unnecessarily dying alone and frightened is "moralising froth," good for you and end of chat. See ya, wouldn't want to be ya.
I refer you to the fact that I predicted this outcome from Day 1. If it were up to me, the story would have died there, but it has received such fanatical media attention, not to mention 50 squillion consecutive headers on here, until this one, that I don't feel the slightest bit bad about rubbing it in.
Give it a rest will you. You’re so boring and add nothing to the discussion.
If being right from the moment the story broke is nothing, then I compare very favourably to those who contributed less than nothing
Once again, you’re adding nothing to the discussion, you’re just merely attempting to provoke a reaction. You’re a troll and nothing else.
Starmer's big idea is a Bill of Attainder against Cummings? 'Cos that's never been used as a tool of autocrats and won't look like a partisan witch-hunt at all!
Let him go ahead. As long as he realizes that he'll be declaring total war on a government with a landslide majority and zero fucks to give.
Hope it's worth it, Keir!
SKS isn't that stupid.
Agree - he's played this brilliantly from the start "never interrupt your enemy while he is making mistakes" - from a political point of view its better for Labour if Cummings stays - an eternal reminder of "one law for them, another for us". A more difficult calculus for SKS is what's in the national interest.....he may conclude "A Labour government from 2024" and find that coincides with what's best for Labour...
The smart move is to completely sideline the government and PM and make an appeal directly to the people about civic duty. Acknowledge that it's even more difficult to live by these rules because of the government's position on Cummings but make clear that they are still the right rules.
"Today I'm asking the people of the UK to continue observing the social distancing rules and to comply with contact tracers if they are asked to isolate. I know this is something that is even more difficult to do now than it was last week because of actions taken by the PM and Mr Cummings, but it is still the right thing to do. I believe that all of the people in the UK have an extraordinary capacity to do the right thing when asked. This doesn't mean we are letting the government or Mr Cummings off the hook and neither should you, but these actions by him should not be allowed to interfere with our ability to reopen the economy and keep our people and NHS safe from this virus."
That kind of statement makes Starmer the de facto PM and people will see him as PM material.
"Starmer the de facto PM"
Good job he leads a party in Parliament with a majority to pass legislation then. Oh...wait....
Boris Johnson doesn't "lead" a party in Parliament, because, as I have said many times before his elevation to Conservative Party "leader" and PM, he has zero leadership skills. He is a blusterer. Some would say a good speech maker (provided no questions are asked); he undoubtedly can write a good article for a newspaper; and he can win an election by default if the opposition is weak, but he is most definitely not a leader. Every day that goes by proves this to the nation and himself.
Hmmm. Last time I looked...yep. ...Just checked again....he is leader of the Conservative party and Prime Minister. Conservative Party has 365 MP's. Do you have different information?
In name, most certainly, he is the "Leader of the Conservative Party". But in practice he provides no leadership, either for his party or for the country. In this sense, he is no leader....
In your opinion. Which is fine. But that's all it is.
Nope, not just opinion, but by objective measurement. I have been involved in the training and selection of leaders most of my adult life. That is why I have always thought Johnson is a disaster for the Conservative Party (of which I used to be a member) and he is now proving to be a disaster for the country. Only someone with limited common sense cannot see it. Gove has measurable leadership skills, so does Hunt, even Hancock. Thatcher and Blair had it in spade loads, and to a lesser extent so did Cameron. John Major was a better leader than many gave him credit and so did Hague. Johnson is a leadership vacuum.
It's awful that this view of politics is gaining ground here. It's the reason why US politics is so dysfunctional. It's the mentality of the bully and the authoritarian, and is not compatible with reasoned democratic debate and an open and pluralistic political culture.
Politics changed for ever in 1997. Blair won by lying, cheating, and leveraging his partisan support in the media.
Those on the right of politics have taken far too long to realise that they need to respond with the same tactics.
This is satire, right? If you think the media are biased towards the Labour party may I respectfully point you towards the Mail, Sun, Express, Times and Telegraph newspapers. The only thing that happened in 1997 is that Labour won the election, that's democracy, the peaceful transition of power from one party to another. If you find losing elections so traumatic, all I can say is that it's a good job you're not left wing or pro-European!
The thing I find strange is how closely the Cummings situation parallels the ‘Stop the Coup’ issue. Govt does something supposedly beyond the pale, media firestorm commences, govt doesn’t back down baffling the expectations of the majority of pundits, all and sundry firmly conclude that Boris / Cummings et al are finished as a political force.
Whatever else the current saga has done, it has thoroughly distracted from the government’s real failings in handling Covid-19 - whether you think those failings are ‘reasonable’ or not.
Well said. We literally went through this exact same thing barely 8 months ago. Boris and Cummings were indeed 'finished' then too, according to the conventional wisdom of many, including on here.
How did that work out again?
Boris was finished because he lost his first X votes in parliament...
Given that the vast majority of those who got a positive test yesterday will be in care homes or around the NHS - the benefit of the app is pretty limited at this stage.
On the contrary. It is when the number in the community is relatively small and manageable that trace and test has a chance.
I meant the app element of trace and test has limited value when most of the testees are in a hospital bed, or work in the NHS.
It has been overhyped from the start. Every announcement seems to be for some sort of "game changing" or "world beating" development — field hosptials, vaccine targets, antibody tests, ventilator manufacturing, PPE deliveries, widening testing, the "app", Remdesivir — when many of them are of marginal value, and some will simply prove worthless.
Track and trace should have been done from the start with paper and pencil. Have you, the Covid-19 sufferer, spent any time in the last fortnight in a supermarket, pub or stadium? Where do you work? Does anyone you live with look a bit green about the gills? Then if it turns out a lot of shoppers at MadeUp supermarket but no-one at Twickenham got it, that is useful information that can be acted upon.
But we can't do that because it would not trace 100 per cent of contacts so instead we will spend two days writing an app, except it is not two days, it takes months if it ever happens at all.
Because it appears that Johnson cannot function without him.
This is the big takeout. I sense that Gove and Cummings are running the government with Johnson surplus to requirements.
I don't surplus to requirements is correct. Hors d 'combat may be.
A bit of a disadvantage when we're very much in the middle of said combat. A war-losing disadvantage possibly..
Its not ideal but trying to change the rider mid gallop might just be worse. The question remains whether Boris is permanently impaired by the virus or temporarily. No real evidence one way or the other at the moment.
We changed Prime Ministers during both world wars.
If the evidence mounts that he is permanently impaired we will need to do so again.
Is the job spec of PM not malleable enough that it can be done by someone recovering from a serious illness. I think it almost certainly is but would require the senior ministers in the cabinet to be given more automony, influence and power. I think that is what should happen in the first instance, whereas the govt has centralised all the power at the hands of the PM.
And is Sean even right about war? There is not much literature about war itself considering how much time we've spent on it. Take the Crimean, Boer and Great Wars: lots of poems and paintings but novels? ... Any number of great films but literature?
The Boy's Own Commando Comics? They appear to be required reading for some of the anti-Europe brigade. We'll show the filthy bosche!!!
That's why a statement like the one I have written makes sense. It stays away from the political game playing
Really?
Pretending you are PM without bothering to ask the voters first sounds like game playing to me.
No, he'd be saying it as leader of the opposition which is also an important role in the UK. In fact he'd be supporting the government position, there's no game playing involved. It would.be a legitimate attempt to try and get people on board with keeping social distancing and isolation in the face of huge pressure to ignore it.
Because it appears that Johnson cannot function without him.
This is the big takeout. I sense that Gove and Cummings are running the government with Johnson surplus to requirements.
I don't surplus to requirements is correct. Hors d 'combat may be.
A bit of a disadvantage when we're very much in the middle of said combat. A war-losing disadvantage possibly..
Its not ideal but trying to change the rider mid gallop might just be worse. The question remains whether Boris is permanently impaired by the virus or temporarily. No real evidence one way or the other at the moment.
We changed Prime Ministers during both world wars.
BJ more Asquith than Neville, especially in the trusting them to drive your daughter home stakes.
If I were feeling pedantic, I would point out that tweet might be considered technically incorrect. Neither David Lloyd George nor Arthur Balfour were Prime Minister for any of the elections they fought as leader of their party. Lloyd George led a group of independent Liberals In 1918, and although Wikipedia lumps them together as ‘a Party’ they did not amount to a party in any formal sense. By the time he became Liberal leader in 1926, he had been out of office for four years. In 1931 and 1935 the Lloyd George grouping was again hardly a party.
Balfour is an even more complicated case, because he became PM in 1902 and resigned in favour of the Leader of the Opposition in 1905, going on to fight (and lose) three general elections in 1906 and 1910 as Leader of the Opposition himself. However, he was First Lord of the Treasury and Leader of the Unionists in the Commons in 1900, and since peers were not supposed to campaign at the time he was effectively the PM for voting purposes.
So yes, it stacks up in reality as a claim. However, it’s just a little more complicated than that.
Is there a good general study of the concept of royal favourites? One would diagnose Johnson/Cummings as a Charles/Buckingham situation, if it weren't for Cummings's personal appearance and Johnson's lack of reputation for that particular flavour of porkswordsmanship. Then again it's not clear that Charles/Buckingham was a Charles/Buckingham situation, more of a kind of comfort blanket.
Starmer's big idea is a Bill of Attainder against Cummings? 'Cos that's never been used as a tool of autocrats and won't look like a partisan witch-hunt at all!
Let him go ahead. As long as he realizes that he'll be declaring total war on a government with a landslide majority and zero fucks to give.
Hope it's worth it, Keir!
SKS isn't that stupid.
Agree - he's played this brilliantly from the start "never interrupt your enemy while he is making mistakes" - from a political point of view its better for Labour if Cummings stays - an eternal reminder of "one law for them, another for us". A more difficult calculus for SKS is what's in the national interest.....he may conclude "A Labour government from 2024" and find that coincides with what's best for Labour...
The smart move is to completely sideline the government and PM and make an appeal directly to the people about civic duty. Acknowledge that it's even more difficult to live by these rules because of the government's position on Cummings but make clear that they are still the right rules.
"Today I'm asking the people of the UK to continue observing the social distancing rules and to comply with contact tracers if they are asked to isolate. I know this is something that is even more difficult to do now than it was last week because of actions taken by the PM and Mr Cummings, but it is still the right thing to do. I believe that all of the people in the UK have an extraordinary capacity to do the right thing when asked. This doesn't mean we are letting the government or Mr Cummings off the hook and neither should you, but these actions by him should not be allowed to interfere with our ability to reopen the economy and keep our people and NHS safe from this virus."
That kind of statement makes Starmer the de facto PM and people will see him as PM material.
Quite apart from the political aspects there's also a chance that a few people will listen to him and choose the hard option that keeps others safe in the weeks ahead.
It's past time waiting for Johnson to do the right thing, and complaining when he doesn't. Other people have to do the right thing in his stead. I hope Starmer - and others - do as you suggest.
And is Sean even right about war? There is not much literature about war itself considering how much time we've spent on it. Take the Crimean, Boer and Great Wars: lots of poems and paintings but novels? ... Any number of great films but literature?
The Boy's Own Commando Comics? They appear to be required reading for some of the anti-Europe brigade. We'll show the filthy bosche!!!
You shouldn't underestimate our achievements in 1918, 1945 and 1966!
Starmer's big idea is a Bill of Attainder against Cummings? 'Cos that's never been used as a tool of autocrats and won't look like a partisan witch-hunt at all!
Let him go ahead. As long as he realizes that he'll be declaring total war on a government with a landslide majority and zero fucks to give.
Hope it's worth it, Keir!
SKS isn't that stupid.
Agree - he's played this brilliantly from the start "never interrupt your enemy while he is making mistakes" - from a political point of view its better for Labour if Cummings stays - an eternal reminder of "one law for them, another for us". A more difficult calculus for SKS is what's in the national interest.....he may conclude "A Labour government from 2024" and find that coincides with what's best for Labour...
The smart move is to completely sideline the government and PM and make an appeal directly to the people about civic duty. Acknowledge that it's even more difficult to live by these rules because of the government's position on Cummings but make clear that they are still the right rules.
"Today I'm asking the people of the UK to continue observing the social distancing rules and to comply with contact tracers if they are asked to isolate. I know this is something that is even more difficult to do now than it was last week because of actions taken by the PM and Mr Cummings, but it is still the right thing to do. I believe that all of the people in the UK have an extraordinary capacity to do the right thing when asked. This doesn't mean we are letting the government or Mr Cummings off the hook and neither should you, but these actions by him should not be allowed to interfere with our ability to reopen the economy and keep our people and NHS safe from this virus."
That kind of statement makes Starmer the de facto PM and people will see him as PM material.
"Starmer the de facto PM"
Good job he leads a party in Parliament with a majority to pass legislation then. Oh...wait....
If he did what Max suggests he would be doing a great deal more good for the country than passing legislation.
Such as?
Did you not read what Max said? Did you reply to him without reading it?
Do keep up. Referring to this: "...doing a great deal more good for the country than passing legislation"
Not quite sure what you don't understand.
Clearly it is not worth discussing it with you if you can't appreciate how the statement Max drafted could not have a positive influence on peoples actions. Especially as the Govt's actions have clearly had the opposite effect.
And 'Do keep up' is just pathetic and childish.
I'm so sorry to disagree with you....it must hurt dearly.
I'm baffled how making a speech can be more (or less) beneficial than the authority and ability to draft, present and enact legislation - which is of course how we are governed. The only pathetic and childish thing is your appreciation of how we are actually governed.
Because no one is actually going to pay attention to anything the government says on this any more. It's already happening. The government hasn't got the moral authority to ask people to do the right thing any more. When you understand this point you will realise that even a majority of 200 wouldn't make a difference. The only way the government will get compliance now is to send in the police, and that's going to lose even more votes (which is why the decision was taken to make it a voluntary scheme).
So have you seen social distancing breaking down?
Yes, big groups of people drinking in Hampstead Heath on Monday. I've been invited to three separate dinner parties.
You're just showing off now. I don't think I've been invited to three dinner parties in my entire life, and I am a member of the liberal metropolitan elite!
It's awful that this view of politics is gaining ground here. It's the reason why US politics is so dysfunctional. It's the mentality of the bully and the authoritarian, and is not compatible with reasoned democratic debate and an open and pluralistic political culture.
Politics changed for ever in 1997. Blair won by lying, cheating, and leveraging his partisan support in the media.
Those on the right of politics have taken far too long to realise that they need to respond with the same tactics.
This is satire, right? If you think the media are biased towards the Labour party may I respectfully point you towards the Mail, Sun, Express, Times and Telegraph newspapers. The only thing that happened in 1997 is that Labour won the election, that's democracy, the peaceful transition of power from one party to another. If you find losing elections so traumatic, all I can say is that it's a good job you're not left wing or pro-European!
Yes I did a bit of a double take at this too. Labour under Blair certainly broke a few promises/lied on Tuition Fees, National Insurance and Iraq. Boris is on another level though.
Given that the vast majority of those who got a positive test yesterday will be in care homes or around the NHS - the benefit of the app is pretty limited at this stage.
On the contrary. It is when the number in the community is relatively small and manageable that trace and test has a chance.
I meant the app element of trace and test has limited value when most of the testees are in a hospital bed, or work in the NHS.
It has been overhyped from the start. Every announcement seems to be for some sort of "game changing" or "world beating" development — field hosptials, vaccine targets, antibody tests, ventilator manufacturing, PPE deliveries, widening testing, the "app", Remdesivir — when many of them are of marginal value, and some will simply prove worthless.
Track and trace should have been done from the start with paper and pencil. Have you, the Covid-19 sufferer, spent any time in the last fortnight in a supermarket, pub or stadium? Where do you work? Does anyone you live with look a bit green about the gills? Then if it turns out a lot of shoppers at MadeUp supermarket but no-one at Twickenham got it, that is useful information that can be acted upon.
But we can't do that because it would not trace 100 per cent of contacts so instead we will spend two days writing an app, except it is not two days, it takes months if it ever happens at all.
Exactly this.
Half of contacts is better than nothing as it will take a good bite out of R for this infection focus.
And a pen and paper job would automatically get the main contacts - the school class, the No. 45 bus at 1734 on Monday, the Green Man ... and not waste time with twats with mobile phones passing 5 seconds in your company.
Starmer's big idea is a Bill of Attainder against Cummings? 'Cos that's never been used as a tool of autocrats and won't look like a partisan witch-hunt at all!
Let him go ahead. As long as he realizes that he'll be declaring total war on a government with a landslide majority and zero fucks to give.
Hope it's worth it, Keir!
SKS isn't that stupid.
Agree - he's played this brilliantly from the start "never interrupt your enemy while he is making mistakes" - from a political point of view its better for Labour if Cummings stays - an eternal reminder of "one law for them, another for us". A more difficult calculus for SKS is what's in the national interest.....he may conclude "A Labour government from 2024" and find that coincides with what's best for Labour...
The smart move is to completely sideline the government and PM and make an appeal directly to the people about civic duty. Acknowledge that it's even more difficult to live by these rules because of the government's position on Cummings but make clear that they are still the right rules.
"Today I'm asking the people of the UK to continue observing the social distancing rules and to comply with contact tracers if they are asked to isolate. I know this is something that is even more difficult to do now than it was last week because of actions taken by the PM and Mr Cummings, but it is still the right thing to do. I believe that all of the people in the UK have an extraordinary capacity to do the right thing when asked. This doesn't mean we are letting the government or Mr Cummings off the hook and neither should you, but these actions by him should not be allowed to interfere with our ability to reopen the economy and keep our people and NHS safe from this virus."
That kind of statement makes Starmer the de facto PM and people will see him as PM material.
Quite apart from the political aspects there's also a chance that a few people will listen to him and choose the hard option that keeps others safe in the weeks ahead.
It's past time waiting for Johnson to do the right thing, and complaining when he doesn't. Other people have to do the right thing in his stead. I hope Starmer - and others - do as you suggest.
Starmer's big idea is a Bill of Attainder against Cummings? 'Cos that's never been used as a tool of autocrats and won't look like a partisan witch-hunt at all!
Let him go ahead. As long as he realizes that he'll be declaring total war on a government with a landslide majority and zero fucks to give.
Hope it's worth it, Keir!
SKS isn't that stupid.
Agree - he's played this brilliantly from the start "never interrupt your enemy while he is making mistakes" - from a political point of view its better for Labour if Cummings stays - an eternal reminder of "one law for them, another for us". A more difficult calculus for SKS is what's in the national interest.....he may conclude "A Labour government from 2024" and find that coincides with what's best for Labour...
The smart move is to completely sideline the government and PM and make an appeal directly to the people about civic duty. Acknowledge that it's even more difficult to live by these rules because of the government's position on Cummings but make clear that they are still the right rules.
"Today I'm asking the people of the UK to continue observing the social distancing rules and to comply with contact tracers if they are asked to isolate. I know this is something that is even more difficult to do now than it was last week because of actions taken by the PM and Mr Cummings, but it is still the right thing to do. I believe that all of the people in the UK have an extraordinary capacity to do the right thing when asked. This doesn't mean we are letting the government or Mr Cummings off the hook and neither should you, but these actions by him should not be allowed to interfere with our ability to reopen the economy and keep our people and NHS safe from this virus."
That kind of statement makes Starmer the de facto PM and people will see him as PM material.
"Starmer the de facto PM"
Good job he leads a party in Parliament with a majority to pass legislation then. Oh...wait....
When the voters start listening to him instead of the PM it's just a matter of time until the PM falls.
With two or three smart plays Starmer could absolutely destroy Boris.
How? Tell me. "Destroy" a PM with a 80 seat majority with 4 years to go until a GE.
Write off BJ and DC at your peril. It's been done so many times. Each time they've proven their enemies as fools.
It goes back to moral authority, as of now Boris hasn't got it. Neither has Starmer but with a few smart plays he could show he has it in the eyes of the voters. It's the classic Blair play vs Major or Dave vs Gordon.
And my point is that with such a long way to go to an election and there are so many unknown unknowns that it is risible to predict what may happen in the eyes of voters.
I'm sure Blair lost "moral authority" in 2003 with millions on the streets and an illegal war. If this site was around then we would be having the same conversations. Didn't stop him winning the 2005 election with a comfortable majority did it?
But hey. Let blind hatred of Dominic Cummings blind you to any sensible analysis of how political fortunes ebb and flow.
In 2005 Blair won against Howard. From the evidence so far it looks like Starmer is in the Dave/Blair/Boris category of leader not the IDS/Hague/Brown one.
He may be. But then so is Boris.
Next 4 years will be interesting. No individual drama between now and then will settle it. There will be many highs and lows to come.
I always think it's narcissistic (is there a better word) to think the dramas of today will lock things in stone. This too shall pass.
Nope, "Boris" as you so affectionately refer to him as only wins against very weak opposition. Corbyn and Livingstone ffs! The people of this country are clearly not Marxists.
Using someone's name isn't affectionate it's just their name. I can call you Nigel and you can call me Phil or Philip, there's no affection there. Boris is his name and if that's how he wishes to be addressed so be it. If Keir Starmer wants to be called Keir I'd call him that.
As for the opposition he's faced, you can only defeat the opposition that's in front of you.
And is Sean even right about war? There is not much literature about war itself considering how much time we've spent on it. Take the Crimean, Boer and Great Wars: lots of poems and paintings but novels? ... Any number of great films but literature?
The Boy's Own Commando Comics? They appear to be required reading for some of the anti-Europe brigade. We'll show the filthy bosche!!!
You shouldn't underestimate our achievements in 1918, 1945 and 1966!
"Why we remember wars but forget plagues Pandemics aren't represented in film or literature because they're too boring, too horrific and too depressing By Sean Thomas"
Terrific piece by Sean. I pretty-much agree with him. A month or so back my Agent said he was looking forward to first-hand writing on this virus and I thought at the time, 'oh no.' I've just forwarded him Sean's essay.
I don't think Coronavirus lit will be filling up people's Christmas stockings this year.
Sean did miss the film Contagion, which is more like a documentary and well worth watching, as well as a host of other virus films:
Is this Sean chap right though? First, the relative shortage of plague literature might be because actually it is a boring subject -- person X gets ill and either dies or recovers -- rinse and repeat thousands of times. The only heroism possible is on the medical front, and until recently the quacks with their leeches and potions were not much use and even now, how filmic are academics arguing about spreadsheets? House had an episode with some sort of plague iirc (no spoilers!).
And is Sean even right about war? There is not much literature about war itself considering how much time we've spent on it. Take the Crimean, Boer and Great Wars: lots of poems and paintings but novels? Testament of Youth and A Farewell to Arms used the war as a backdrop. All Quiet on the Western Front, perhaps. Any others from anywhere near that time? More recently we've had books like Birdsong but are they based on the war or on war films? Spanish Civil War? Picasso's Guernica. Second World War? Any number of great films but literature?
More recently Vietnam and Iraq have given us quantity if not quality. Was the Korean War's Catch 22 the last great war novel?
I refer you to the fact that I predicted this outcome from Day 1. If it were up to me, the story would have died there, but it has received such fanatical media attention, not to mention 50 squillion consecutive headers on here, until this one, that I don't feel the slightest bit bad about rubbing it in.
Give it a rest will you. You’re so boring and add nothing to the discussion.
If being right from the moment the story broke is nothing, then I compare very favourably to those who contributed less than nothing
Once again, you’re adding nothing to the discussion, you’re just merely attempting to provoke a reaction. You’re a troll and nothing else.
Yes, of course people who dare not to agree with the great Gallowgate are trolls. Only your opinions are permitted, your will is absolute.
But do you sometimes look around you and wonder why the reality of the world doesn't match your immaculate thoughts, even though you're always right?
Out of the Nordic countries (Norway, Sweden, Denmark - with similar climates, culture, societies, economies, population densities, and physical connectivity, and healthcare quality - all the factors that feed into infectivity and death tolls):
Per capita death rates:
Economic impact forecast:
And Sweden were hoping to protect their care homes and elderly - which has completely failed. They were hoping to get sufficient herd immunity to protect against a second wave - and they're nowhere near.
And their death rate has plateaued around 60-70 per day (which would be around 400-500 per day scaled up to the UK).
If Norway did lock down too hard, then that means they've now got far more scope going forwards, and they erred on the side of saving a hell of a lot more lives and preserving their economies better, at the cost of a couple of difficult months. Best side on which to err, really.
Point of order, Denmarks population density is completely different to Norway and Sweden.
Norway 15 P/km2 Sweden 25 P/Km2 Denmark 137 P/Km2
Denmark is more densely populated than France or Spain for example.
Sweden doing so much worse than Denmark is a big problem for those who think lockdown wasnt important.
Very good point; my apologies. Denmark would have every excuse for being a lot worse hit than Sweden, all else being equal.
Need to be careful with raw population density figures. Urban density probably matters more. Vast swathes of nothingness won't prevent spread, an absence of mass public transport etc might.
Fair enough: we can see the distribution of density on the following map.
Denmark definitely looks more vulnerable than Sweden
Definitely. And Britain more than almost any other European nation too.
What works for Sweden there's no reason whatsoever to suggest would work for us.
Because it appears that Johnson cannot function without him.
This is the big takeout. I sense that Gove and Cummings are running the government with Johnson surplus to requirements.
I don't surplus to requirements is correct. Hors d 'combat may be.
A bit of a disadvantage when we're very much in the middle of said combat. A war-losing disadvantage possibly..
Its not ideal but trying to change the rider mid gallop might just be worse. The question remains whether Boris is permanently impaired by the virus or temporarily. No real evidence one way or the other at the moment.
We changed Prime Ministers during both world wars.
BJ more Asquith than Neville, especially in the trusting them to drive your daughter home stakes.
If I were feeling pedantic, I would point out that tweet might be considered technically incorrect. Neither David Lloyd George nor Arthur Balfour were Prime Minister for any of the elections they fought as leader of their party. Lloyd George led a group of independent Liberals In 1918, and although Wikipedia lumps them together as ‘a Party’ they did not amount to a party in any formal sense. By the time he became Liberal leader in 1926, he had been out of office for four years. In 1931 and 1935 the Lloyd George grouping was again hardly a party.
Balfour is an even more complicated case, because he became PM in 1902 and resigned in favour of the Leader of the Opposition in 1905, going on to fight (and lose) three general elections in 1906 and 1910 as Leader of the Opposition himself. However, he was First Lord of the Treasury and Leader of the Unionists in the Commons in 1900, and since peers were not supposed to campaign at the time he was effectively the PM for voting purposes.
So yes, it stacks up in reality as a claim. However, it’s just a little more complicated than that.
Is there a good general study of the concept of royal favourites? One would diagnose Johnson/Cummings as a Charles/Buckingham situation, if it weren't for Cummings's personal appearance and Johnson's lack of reputation for that particular flavour of porkswordsmanship. Then again it's not clear that Charles/Buckingham was a Charles/Buckingham situation, more of a kind of comfort blanket.
Not that I’m aware of, although it would be interesting.
The scenario that seems closest to me is George III and the 3rd Earl of Bute. That ended in tears for the latter...
I refer you to the fact that I predicted this outcome from Day 1. If it were up to me, the story would have died there, but it has received such fanatical media attention, not to mention 50 squillion consecutive headers on here, until this one, that I don't feel the slightest bit bad about rubbing it in.
Give it a rest will you. You’re so boring and add nothing to the discussion.
If being right from the moment the story broke is nothing, then I compare very favourably to those who contributed less than nothing
Once again, you’re adding nothing to the discussion, you’re just merely attempting to provoke a reaction. You’re a troll and nothing else.
Yes, of course people who dare not to agree with the great Gallowgate are trolls. Only your opinions are permitted, your will is absolute.
But do you sometimes look around you and wonder why the reality of the world doesn't match your immaculate thoughts, even though you're always right?
I suppose it must be the world that is wrong
As Andy Cooke said, we need to discuss the world as it is not the world as we wish it to be.
We can't dissolve the electorate and choose another one
And is Sean even right about war? There is not much literature about war itself considering how much time we've spent on it. Take the Crimean, Boer and Great Wars: lots of poems and paintings but novels? ... Any number of great films but literature?
The Boy's Own Commando Comics? They appear to be required reading for some of the anti-Europe brigade. We'll show the filthy bosche!!!
You shouldn't underestimate our achievements in 1918, 1945 and 1966!
What happened in 1966?
The greatest victory of them all against the Germans. ' World Cup Willie, famous for the cup...'
I refer you to the fact that I predicted this outcome from Day 1. If it were up to me, the story would have died there, but it has received such fanatical media attention, not to mention 50 squillion consecutive headers on here, until this one, that I don't feel the slightest bit bad about rubbing it in.
Give it a rest will you. You’re so boring and add nothing to the discussion.
If being right from the moment the story broke is nothing, then I compare very favourably to those who contributed less than nothing
Once again, you’re adding nothing to the discussion, you’re just merely attempting to provoke a reaction. You’re a troll and nothing else.
Yes, of course people who dare not to agree with the great Gallowgate are trolls. Only your opinions are permitted, your will is absolute.
But do you sometimes look around you and wonder why the reality of the world doesn't match your immaculate thoughts, even though you're always right?
I suppose it must be the world that is wrong
And there you are, doing it again.
I disagree with @Philip_Thompson on a lot of things but at least he doesn’t post everything for the purpose of provoking a reaction. You’re not interested in any debate or discussion, you just want to wind everyone up.
Have to say, I think it's pretty poor that the govt expects kids to go back to school next week when track and trace won't be available for at least another four weeks. Hardly inspires confidence. We will probably send our year 6 back since infection rates in London are currently so low, but I think the decision would be different if we lived in some other parts of the country.
Given that the vast majority of those who got a positive test yesterday will be in care homes or around the NHS - the benefit of the app is pretty limited at this stage.
On the contrary. It is when the number in the community is relatively small and manageable that trace and test has a chance.
I meant the app element of trace and test has limited value when most of the testees are in a hospital bed, or work in the NHS.
It has been overhyped from the start. Every announcement seems to be for some sort of "game changing" or "world beating" development — field hosptials, vaccine targets, antibody tests, ventilator manufacturing, PPE deliveries, widening testing, the "app", Remdesivir — when many of them are of marginal value, and some will simply prove worthless.
Track and trace should have been done from the start with paper and pencil. Have you, the Covid-19 sufferer, spent any time in the last fortnight in a supermarket, pub or stadium? Where do you work? Does anyone you live with look a bit green about the gills? Then if it turns out a lot of shoppers at MadeUp supermarket but no-one at Twickenham got it, that is useful information that can be acted upon.
But we can't do that because it would not trace 100 per cent of contacts so instead we will spend two days writing an app, except it is not two days, it takes months if it ever happens at all.
Exactly this.
Half of contacts is better than nothing as it will take a good bite out of R for this infection focus.
And a pen and paper job would automatically get the main contacts - the school class, the No. 45 bus at 1734 on Monday, the Green Man ... and not waste time with twats with mobile phones passing 5 seconds in your company.
Starmer's big idea is a Bill of Attainder against Cummings? 'Cos that's never been used as a tool of autocrats and won't look like a partisan witch-hunt at all!
Let him go ahead. As long as he realizes that he'll be declaring total war on a government with a landslide majority and zero fucks to give.
Hope it's worth it, Keir!
SKS isn't that stupid.
Agree - he's played this brilliantly from the start "never interrupt your enemy while he is making mistakes" - from a political point of view its better for Labour if Cummings stays - an eternal reminder of "one law for them, another for us". A more difficult calculus for SKS is what's in the national interest.....he may conclude "A Labour government from 2024" and find that coincides with what's best for Labour...
The smart move is to completely sideline the government and PM and make an appeal directly to the people about civic duty. Acknowledge that it's even more difficult to live by these rules because of the government's position on Cummings but make clear that they are still the right rules.
"Today I'm asking the people of the UK to continue observing the social distancing rules and to comply with contact tracers if they are asked to isolate. I know this is something that is even more difficult to do now than it was last week because of actions taken by the PM and Mr Cummings, but it is still the right thing to do. I believe that all of the people in the UK have an extraordinary capacity to do the right thing when asked. This doesn't mean we are letting the government or Mr Cummings off the hook and neither should you, but these actions by him should not be allowed to interfere with our ability to reopen the economy and keep our people and NHS safe from this virus."
That kind of statement makes Starmer the de facto PM and people will see him as PM material.
Quite apart from the political aspects there's also a chance that a few people will listen to him and choose the hard option that keeps others safe in the weeks ahead.
It's past time waiting for Johnson to do the right thing, and complaining when he doesn't. Other people have to do the right thing in his stead. I hope Starmer - and others - do as you suggest.
Starmer has been in hiding for a week since PMQs.
I wonder if he was worried that a Labour MP had done similar and had been ringing round.
Given that the vast majority of those who got a positive test yesterday will be in care homes or around the NHS - the benefit of the app is pretty limited at this stage.
On the contrary. It is when the number in the community is relatively small and manageable that trace and test has a chance.
I meant the app element of trace and test has limited value when most of the testees are in a hospital bed, or work in the NHS.
It has been overhyped from the start. Every announcement seems to be for some sort of "game changing" or "world beating" development — field hosptials, vaccine targets, antibody tests, ventilator manufacturing, PPE deliveries, widening testing, the "app", Remdesivir — when many of them are of marginal value, and some will simply prove worthless.
Track and trace should have been done from the start with paper and pencil. Have you, the Covid-19 sufferer, spent any time in the last fortnight in a supermarket, pub or stadium? Where do you work? Does anyone you live with look a bit green about the gills? Then if it turns out a lot of shoppers at MadeUp supermarket but no-one at Twickenham got it, that is useful information that can be acted upon.
But we can't do that because it would not trace 100 per cent of contacts so instead we will spend two days writing an app, except it is not two days, it takes months if it ever happens at all.
Exactly this.
Half of contacts is better than nothing as it will take a good bite out of R for this infection focus.
And a pen and paper job would automatically get the main contacts - the school class, the No. 45 bus at 1734 on Monday, the Green Man ... and not waste time with twats with mobile phones passing 5 seconds in your company.
So how do you identify who was on the No 45 bus?
Easy, the answer is always: Piers Morgan and Dominic Cummings.
And is Sean even right about war? There is not much literature about war itself considering how much time we've spent on it. Take the Crimean, Boer and Great Wars: lots of poems and paintings but novels? ... Any number of great films but literature?
The Boy's Own Commando Comics? They appear to be required reading for some of the anti-Europe brigade. We'll show the filthy bosche!!!
You shouldn't underestimate our achievements in 1918, 1945 and 1966!
What happened in 1966?
Revolver was released, can't think of anything else..
And is Sean even right about war? There is not much literature about war itself considering how much time we've spent on it. Take the Crimean, Boer and Great Wars: lots of poems and paintings but novels? ... Any number of great films but literature?
The Boy's Own Commando Comics? They appear to be required reading for some of the anti-Europe brigade. We'll show the filthy bosche!!!
You shouldn't underestimate our achievements in 1918, 1945 and 1966!
What happened in 1966?
The greatest victory of them all against the Germans. ' World Cup Willie, famous for the cup...'
Oh, that. I'm a Scot! And you did say 'we' in a British or even Imperial context!
But I also have happy memories of Commando comics - definitely better drawn than some of their competitors, who couldn't draw a Panzer IV to save their lives.
Starmer's big idea is a Bill of Attainder against Cummings? 'Cos that's never been used as a tool of autocrats and won't look like a partisan witch-hunt at all!
Let him go ahead. As long as he realizes that he'll be declaring total war on a government with a landslide majority and zero fucks to give.
Hope it's worth it, Keir!
SKS isn't that stupid.
Agree - he's played this brilliantly from the start "never interrupt your enemy while he is making mistakes" - from a political point of view its better for Labour if Cummings stays - an eternal reminder of "one law for them, another for us". A more difficult calculus for SKS is what's in the national interest.....he may conclude "A Labour government from 2024" and find that coincides with what's best for Labour...
The smart move is to completely sideline the government and PM and make an appeal directly to the people about civic duty. Acknowledge that it's even more difficult to live by these rules because of the government's position on Cummings but make clear that they are still the right rules.
"Today I'm asking the people of the UK to continue observing the social distancing rules and to comply with contact tracers if they are asked to isolate. I know this is something that is even more difficult to do now than it was last week because of actions taken by the PM and Mr Cummings, but it is still the right thing to do. I believe that all of the people in the UK have an extraordinary capacity to do the right thing when asked. This doesn't mean we are letting the government or Mr Cummings off the hook and neither should you, but these actions by him should not be allowed to interfere with our ability to reopen the economy and keep our people and NHS safe from this virus."
That kind of statement makes Starmer the de facto PM and people will see him as PM material.
Quite apart from the political aspects there's also a chance that a few people will listen to him and choose the hard option that keeps others safe in the weeks ahead.
It's past time waiting for Johnson to do the right thing, and complaining when he doesn't. Other people have to do the right thing in his stead. I hope Starmer - and others - do as you suggest.
Starmer has been in hiding for a week since PMQs.
I wonder if he was worried that a Labour MP had done similar and had been ringing round.
Or maybe he was so busy eating popcorn he didn’t have time to comment?
Half of contacts is better than nothing as it will take a good bite out of R for this infection focus.
And a pen and paper job would automatically get the main contacts - the school class, the No. 45 bus at 1734 on Monday, the Green Man ... and not waste time with twats with mobile phones passing 5 seconds in your company.
So how do you identify who was on the No 45 bus?
You exchange business cards with them when you get on and remember - a good firm handshake and a squeeze on the shoulder, especially if they look like sound chaps!
Starmer's big idea is a Bill of Attainder against Cummings? 'Cos that's never been used as a tool of autocrats and won't look like a partisan witch-hunt at all!
Let him go ahead. As long as he realizes that he'll be declaring total war on a government with a landslide majority and zero fucks to give.
Hope it's worth it, Keir!
SKS isn't that stupid.
Agree - he's played this brilliantly from the start "never interrupt your enemy while he is making mistakes" - from a political point of view its better for Labour if Cummings stays - an eternal reminder of "one law for them, another for us". A more difficult calculus for SKS is what's in the national interest.....he may conclude "A Labour government from 2024" and find that coincides with what's best for Labour...
The smart move is to completely sideline the government and PM and make an appeal directly to the people about civic duty. Acknowledge that it's even more difficult to live by these rules because of the government's position on Cummings but make clear that they are still the right rules.
"Today I'm asking the people of the UK to continue observing the social distancing rules and to comply with contact tracers if they are asked to isolate. I know this is something that is even more difficult to do now than it was last week because of actions taken by the PM and Mr Cummings, but it is still the right thing to do. I believe that all of the people in the UK have an extraordinary capacity to do the right thing when asked. This doesn't mean we are letting the government or Mr Cummings off the hook and neither should you, but these actions by him should not be allowed to interfere with our ability to reopen the economy and keep our people and NHS safe from this virus."
That kind of statement makes Starmer the de facto PM and people will see him as PM material.
Quite apart from the political aspects there's also a chance that a few people will listen to him and choose the hard option that keeps others safe in the weeks ahead.
It's past time waiting for Johnson to do the right thing, and complaining when he doesn't. Other people have to do the right thing in his stead. I hope Starmer - and others - do as you suggest.
Starmer has been in hiding for a week since PMQs.
He has which was clearly the correct thing to do. Napoleon and all that.
I refer you to the fact that I predicted this outcome from Day 1. If it were up to me, the story would have died there, but it has received such fanatical media attention, not to mention 50 squillion consecutive headers on here, until this one, that I don't feel the slightest bit bad about rubbing it in.
Give it a rest will you. You’re so boring and add nothing to the discussion.
If being right from the moment the story broke is nothing, then I compare very favourably to those who contributed less than nothing
Once again, you’re adding nothing to the discussion, you’re just merely attempting to provoke a reaction. You’re a troll and nothing else.
Yes, of course people who dare not to agree with the great Gallowgate are trolls. Only your opinions are permitted, your will is absolute.
But do you sometimes look around you and wonder why the reality of the world doesn't match your immaculate thoughts, even though you're always right?
I suppose it must be the world that is wrong
And there you are, doing it again.
I disagree with @Philip_Thompson on a lot of things but at least he doesn’t post everything for the purpose of provoking a reaction. You’re not interested in any debate or discussion, you just want to wind everyone up.
I have no idea what you're interested in, and honestly I don't much care. Feel free not to read if you don't like it. You don't seem to be able to handle opposing points of view, so why you should choose to expose yourself to them is a mystery to me.
Out of the Nordic countries (Norway, Sweden, Denmark - with similar climates, culture, societies, economies, population densities, and physical connectivity, and healthcare quality - all the factors that feed into infectivity and death tolls):
Per capita death rates:
Economic impact forecast:
And Sweden were hoping to protect their care homes and elderly - which has completely failed. They were hoping to get sufficient herd immunity to protect against a second wave - and they're nowhere near.
And their death rate has plateaued around 60-70 per day (which would be around 400-500 per day scaled up to the UK).
If Norway did lock down too hard, then that means they've now got far more scope going forwards, and they erred on the side of saving a hell of a lot more lives and preserving their economies better, at the cost of a couple of difficult months. Best side on which to err, really.
Point of order, Denmarks population density is completely different to Norway and Sweden.
Norway 15 P/km2 Sweden 25 P/Km2 Denmark 137 P/Km2
Denmark is more densely populated than France or Spain for example.
Sweden doing so much worse than Denmark is a big problem for those who think lockdown wasnt important.
Very good point; my apologies. Denmark would have every excuse for being a lot worse hit than Sweden, all else being equal.
Need to be careful with raw population density figures. Urban density probably matters more. Vast swathes of nothingness won't prevent spread, an absence of mass public transport etc might.
Fair enough: we can see the distribution of density on the following map.
Denmark definitely looks more vulnerable than Sweden
The German achievement looks all the more impressive, too. They really are a lot better at a lot of things than we are. I think it would be worth figuring out why that is. They are an obvious role model to emulate, it's odd we spend so much time looking to the US.
And is Sean even right about war? There is not much literature about war itself considering how much time we've spent on it. Take the Crimean, Boer and Great Wars: lots of poems and paintings but novels? ... Any number of great films but literature?
The Boy's Own Commando Comics? They appear to be required reading for some of the anti-Europe brigade. We'll show the filthy bosche!!!
You shouldn't underestimate our achievements in 1918, 1945 and 1966!
What happened in 1966?
The greatest victory of them all against the Germans. ' World Cup Willie, famous for the cup...'
And on the earlier theme of Great War novels - you've got Barbusse Le Feu, Mottram Spanish Farm Trilogy, Junger Storm of Steel/In Stahlgewittern, Hasek The Good Soldier Svejk ...
I think the Govt, in its messages today, has missed the point re people obeying the rules. It is pleading with people to do the right thing regardless of the Cummings issue. Those that believe it is the right thing will almost certainly do so even if they are angry about Cummings.
However there are two other groups of people who largely followed the rules who may now not.
There are those who don't give a toss, but didn't want to get into trouble.
There are those who think the lockdown is nonsense, or has gone too far or who want the economy to get going again, but again didn't want to get into trouble.
These people aren't angry with Cummings, but may well break the rules in greater numbers. Boris won't lose these people's vote, and the former may well be non-voters anyway.
Those that are angry, will probably not break the rules, but Boris will probably lose their vote. But as people say the next election is a long way off.
What I hate in this is hypocrisy. I wonder how many people who are on Furlough are actually working? I am coming across it on an hourly basis. "Yeah im on Furlough but I am working a bit" I wonder how many of those people are saying Cummings should get the sack?
You raise an interesting point. Money Box was reporting widespread abuse by employers this week (the implication was small employers). Even employees finding out they were furloughed only after receiving their payslip. It is particularly hard for employees of small companies to whistleblow. Even though they are protected in law, the practicalities are difficult.
There are huge abuses going on. I know some self employed who are claiming their £2500 but are carrying on working, they just will not invoice for the work they are doing until August. They know there is no chance of any Government audits as the Government simply do not have enough staff. Yet these peeple would consider what Cummings did is far worse than what they are doing.
Bluntly, Cummings actions were far worse. Fiddling the figures for a bit of extra income is merely a venial in & I wouldn’t be surprised if the government had run the numbers & decided that the extra cash injection into the economy was probably a good thing on net so best to turn a blind eye.
What Cummings did was to break isolation, putting many other members of the public at risk: He could easily have killed people. The fact that by the grace of fortune he was not forced to stop en-route & managed to isolate in the family house in Durham just means that he (and those whom he might have infected) got lucky. They still ended up with their son in hospital, where it’s entirely possible that his wife infected a bunch of people.
For me personally there’s no question that Cummings’ actions were worse than fiddling a few £1000. He put lives at risk.
(I still predict that he will stay in post & this too shall pass, but the damage will be done.)
Out of the Nordic countries (Norway, Sweden, Denmark - with similar climates, culture, societies, economies, population densities, and physical connectivity, and healthcare quality - all the factors that feed into infectivity and death tolls):
Per capita death rates:
Economic impact forecast:
And Sweden were hoping to protect their care homes and elderly - which has completely failed. They were hoping to get sufficient herd immunity to protect against a second wave - and they're nowhere near.
And their death rate has plateaued around 60-70 per day (which would be around 400-500 per day scaled up to the UK).
If Norway did lock down too hard, then that means they've now got far more scope going forwards, and they erred on the side of saving a hell of a lot more lives and preserving their economies better, at the cost of a couple of difficult months. Best side on which to err, really.
Point of order, Denmarks population density is completely different to Norway and Sweden.
Norway 15 P/km2 Sweden 25 P/Km2 Denmark 137 P/Km2
Denmark is more densely populated than France or Spain for example.
Sweden doing so much worse than Denmark is a big problem for those who think lockdown wasnt important.
Very good point; my apologies. Denmark would have every excuse for being a lot worse hit than Sweden, all else being equal.
Need to be careful with raw population density figures. Urban density probably matters more. Vast swathes of nothingness won't prevent spread, an absence of mass public transport etc might.
Fair enough: we can see the distribution of density on the following map.
Denmark definitely looks more vulnerable than Sweden
Definitely. And Britain more than almost any other European nation too.
What works for Sweden there's no reason whatsoever to suggest would work for us.
And is Sean even right about war? There is not much literature about war itself considering how much time we've spent on it. Take the Crimean, Boer and Great Wars: lots of poems and paintings but novels? ... Any number of great films but literature?
The Boy's Own Commando Comics? They appear to be required reading for some of the anti-Europe brigade. We'll show the filthy bosche!!!
You shouldn't underestimate our achievements in 1918, 1945 and 1966!
What happened in 1966?
Revolver was released, can't think of anything else..
I do remember the Scots beat England at the footie!
I refer you to the fact that I predicted this outcome from Day 1. If it were up to me, the story would have died there, but it has received such fanatical media attention, not to mention 50 squillion consecutive headers on here, until this one, that I don't feel the slightest bit bad about rubbing it in.
Give it a rest will you. You’re so boring and add nothing to the discussion.
If being right from the moment the story broke is nothing, then I compare very favourably to those who contributed less than nothing
Once again, you’re adding nothing to the discussion, you’re just merely attempting to provoke a reaction. You’re a troll and nothing else.
Yes, of course people who dare not to agree with the great Gallowgate are trolls. Only your opinions are permitted, your will is absolute.
But do you sometimes look around you and wonder why the reality of the world doesn't match your immaculate thoughts, even though you're always right?
I suppose it must be the world that is wrong
And there you are, doing it again.
I disagree with @Philip_Thompson on a lot of things but at least he doesn’t post everything for the purpose of provoking a reaction. You’re not interested in any debate or discussion, you just want to wind everyone up.
I have no idea what you're interested in, and honestly I don't much care. Feel free not to read if you don't like it. You don't seem to be able to handle opposing points of view, so why you should choose to expose yourself to them is a mystery to me.
You claim to not like Twitter yet you perpetually whinge about it, so maybe sort yourself out first.
And is Sean even right about war? There is not much literature about war itself considering how much time we've spent on it. Take the Crimean, Boer and Great Wars: lots of poems and paintings but novels? ... Any number of great films but literature?
The Boy's Own Commando Comics? They appear to be required reading for some of the anti-Europe brigade. We'll show the filthy bosche!!!
You shouldn't underestimate our achievements in 1918, 1945 and 1966!
What happened in 1966?
The greatest victory of them all against the Germans. ' World Cup Willie, famous for the cup...'
And on the earlier theme of Great War novels - you've got Barbusse Le Feu, Mottram Spanish Farm Trilogy, Junger Storm of Steel/In Stahlgewittern, Hasek The Good Soldier Svejk ...
Buchan’s Mr Standfast? Or do you think of that as a spy novel rather than a war novel?
By my reckoning there's probably something closer to a 20 seat majority while Dom is still in post. Hopefully it's lower or its pushed the government into a minorty position. That's the only pressure that will force Boris to make the change.
Given that the vast majority of those who got a positive test yesterday will be in care homes or around the NHS - the benefit of the app is pretty limited at this stage.
On the contrary. It is when the number in the community is relatively small and manageable that trace and test has a chance.
I meant the app element of trace and test has limited value when most of the testees are in a hospital bed, or work in the NHS.
It has been overhyped from the start. Every announcement seems to be for some sort of "game changing" or "world beating" development — field hosptials, vaccine targets, antibody tests, ventilator manufacturing, PPE deliveries, widening testing, the "app", Remdesivir — when many of them are of marginal value, and some will simply prove worthless.
Track and trace should have been done from the start with paper and pencil. Have you, the Covid-19 sufferer, spent any time in the last fortnight in a supermarket, pub or stadium? Where do you work? Does anyone you live with look a bit green about the gills? Then if it turns out a lot of shoppers at MadeUp supermarket but no-one at Twickenham got it, that is useful information that can be acted upon.
But we can't do that because it would not trace 100 per cent of contacts so instead we will spend two days writing an app, except it is not two days, it takes months if it ever happens at all.
Exactly this.
Half of contacts is better than nothing as it will take a good bite out of R for this infection focus.
And a pen and paper job would automatically get the main contacts - the school class, the No. 45 bus at 1734 on Monday, the Green Man ... and not waste time with twats with mobile phones passing 5 seconds in your company.
So how do you identify who was on the No 45 bus?
Bus passes. Especially for commuter buses, hardly anyonme uses cash on them (even before covid). But I speak as someone whose municipal buses were never privatised and where only a few commercial companies operate.
And is Sean even right about war? There is not much literature about war itself considering how much time we've spent on it. Take the Crimean, Boer and Great Wars: lots of poems and paintings but novels? ... Any number of great films but literature?
The Boy's Own Commando Comics? They appear to be required reading for some of the anti-Europe brigade. We'll show the filthy bosche!!!
You shouldn't underestimate our achievements in 1918, 1945 and 1966!
What happened in 1966?
The greatest victory of them all against the Germans. ' World Cup Willie, famous for the cup...'
Oh, that. I'm a Scot! And you did say 'we' in a British or even Imperial context!
But I also have happy memories of Commando comics - definitely better drawn than some of their competitors, who couldn't draw a Panzer IV to save their lives.
Not to forget Sven Hassel, a staple of childish raids on my dad's bookshelves at my gran's.
Interesting life, but for geography his oeuvre might have been about HM forces.
'Germany happened to be closer than England, I went to a Wehrmacht recruiting office to enlist'
"Why we remember wars but forget plagues Pandemics aren't represented in film or literature because they're too boring, too horrific and too depressing By Sean Thomas"
Terrific piece by Sean. I pretty-much agree with him. A month or so back my Agent said he was looking forward to first-hand writing on this virus and I thought at the time, 'oh no.' I've just forwarded him Sean's essay.
I don't think Coronavirus lit will be filling up people's Christmas stockings this year.
Sean did miss the film Contagion, which is more like a documentary and well worth watching, as well as a host of other virus films:
Is this Sean chap right though? First, the relative shortage of plague literature might be because actually it is a boring subject -- person X gets ill and either dies or recovers -- rinse and repeat thousands of times. The only heroism possible is on the medical front, and until recently the quacks with their leeches and potions were not much use and even now, how filmic are academics arguing about spreadsheets? House had an episode with some sort of plague iirc (no spoilers!).
And is Sean even right about war? There is not much literature about war itself considering how much time we've spent on it. Take the Crimean, Boer and Great Wars: lots of poems and paintings but novels? Testament of Youth and A Farewell to Arms used the war as a backdrop. All Quiet on the Western Front, perhaps. Any others from anywhere near that time? More recently we've had books like Birdsong but are they based on the war or on war films? Spanish Civil War? Picasso's Guernica. Second World War? Any number of great films but literature?
More recently Vietnam and Iraq have given us quantity if not quality. Was the Korean War's Catch 22 the last great war novel?
Catch 22 is about WW2. What about War and Peace?
So not really Catch 22 then. War and Peace I've never read. Was Tolstoy old enough to have served?
Vietnam and Iraq have produced any number of novels and memoirs, so perhaps it has become easier to find a publisher. Then again, did anyone bother to write a Falklands novel? I seem to remember a fuss about the Bolshevik BBC refusing to broadcast a play about it. But at least until recently, I'd say the question is why poetry rather than novels?
'Not going to comply with track and trace out of protest'?
Do these people realize that making that argument automatically exposes them as hypocrites? The entire premise of the moral outrage against Cummings is that endangering public health is the worst thing in the world, so when the exact same people then conclude 'therefore I can go ahead and endanger public health as much as I like', it reveals them to be rank hypocrites.
If an authority figure committed a murder, would you be justified in saying 'Well, now I'm not going to comply with the laws against murder out of protest'? These ridiculous people apparently think that would be morally justifiable.
Out of the Nordic countries (Norway, Sweden, Denmark - with similar climates, culture, societies, economies, population densities, and physical connectivity, and healthcare quality - all the factors that feed into infectivity and death tolls):
Per capita death rates:
Economic impact forecast:
And Sweden were hoping to protect their care homes and elderly - which has completely failed. They were hoping to get sufficient herd immunity to protect against a second wave - and they're nowhere near.
And their death rate has plateaued around 60-70 per day (which would be around 400-500 per day scaled up to the UK).
If Norway did lock down too hard, then that means they've now got far more scope going forwards, and they erred on the side of saving a hell of a lot more lives and preserving their economies better, at the cost of a couple of difficult months. Best side on which to err, really.
Point of order, Denmarks population density is completely different to Norway and Sweden.
Norway 15 P/km2 Sweden 25 P/Km2 Denmark 137 P/Km2
Denmark is more densely populated than France or Spain for example.
Sweden doing so much worse than Denmark is a big problem for those who think lockdown wasnt important.
Very good point; my apologies. Denmark would have every excuse for being a lot worse hit than Sweden, all else being equal.
Need to be careful with raw population density figures. Urban density probably matters more. Vast swathes of nothingness won't prevent spread, an absence of mass public transport etc might.
Fair enough: we can see the distribution of density on the following map.
Denmark definitely looks more vulnerable than Sweden
Definitely. And Britain more than almost any other European nation too.
What works for Sweden there's no reason whatsoever to suggest would work for us.
Japan, Israel, Taiwan, S.Korea are more densely-populated than the UK, I think.
Japan 7 deaths per million UK 540 deaths per million Israel 31 deaths per million
Japan didn't lock people up. It had voluntary measures.
Incidentally, not widely known but very good is a trilogy on the Second World War - The Eighth Champion of Christendom, Reluctant Odyssey and Warfare Accomplished by Edith Pargeter. She interviewed servicemen as they returned to civilian life and distilled their stories into the adventures of one man in three different theatres. And she writes very well, particularly in not pulling punches about the horrors of war and the traumas they cause. Well worth reading if you can get hold of it.
"Why we remember wars but forget plagues Pandemics aren't represented in film or literature because they're too boring, too horrific and too depressing By Sean Thomas"
Terrific piece by Sean. I pretty-much agree with him. A month or so back my Agent said he was looking forward to first-hand writing on this virus and I thought at the time, 'oh no.' I've just forwarded him Sean's essay.
I don't think Coronavirus lit will be filling up people's Christmas stockings this year.
Sean did miss the film Contagion, which is more like a documentary and well worth watching, as well as a host of other virus films:
Is this Sean chap right though? First, the relative shortage of plague literature might be because actually it is a boring subject -- person X gets ill and either dies or recovers -- rinse and repeat thousands of times. The only heroism possible is on the medical front, and until recently the quacks with their leeches and potions were not much use and even now, how filmic are academics arguing about spreadsheets? House had an episode with some sort of plague iirc (no spoilers!).
And is Sean even right about war? There is not much literature about war itself considering how much time we've spent on it. Take the Crimean, Boer and Great Wars: lots of poems and paintings but novels? Testament of Youth and A Farewell to Arms used the war as a backdrop. All Quiet on the Western Front, perhaps. Any others from anywhere near that time? More recently we've had books like Birdsong but are they based on the war or on war films? Spanish Civil War? Picasso's Guernica. Second World War? Any number of great films but literature?
More recently Vietnam and Iraq have given us quantity if not quality. Was the Korean War's Catch 22 the last great war novel?
Catch 22 is about WW2. What about War and Peace?
So not really Catch 22 then. War and Peace I've never read. Was Tolstoy old enough to have served?
Vietnam and Iraq have produced any number of novels and memoirs, so perhaps it has become easier to find a publisher. Then again, did anyone bother to write a Falklands novel? I seem to remember a fuss about the Bolshevik BBC refusing to broadcast a play about it. But at least until recently, I'd say the question is why poetry rather than novels?
There were several about life in the Army in Northern Ireland. The authors' names escape my memory - did Alan Judd do one?
"Why we remember wars but forget plagues Pandemics aren't represented in film or literature because they're too boring, too horrific and too depressing By Sean Thomas"
Terrific piece by Sean. I pretty-much agree with him. A month or so back my Agent said he was looking forward to first-hand writing on this virus and I thought at the time, 'oh no.' I've just forwarded him Sean's essay.
I don't think Coronavirus lit will be filling up people's Christmas stockings this year.
Sean did miss the film Contagion, which is more like a documentary and well worth watching, as well as a host of other virus films:
Is this Sean chap right though? First, the relative shortage of plague literature might be because actually it is a boring subject -- person X gets ill and either dies or recovers -- rinse and repeat thousands of times. The only heroism possible is on the medical front, and until recently the quacks with their leeches and potions were not much use and even now, how filmic are academics arguing about spreadsheets? House had an episode with some sort of plague iirc (no spoilers!).
And is Sean even right about war? There is not much literature about war itself considering how much time we've spent on it. Take the Crimean, Boer and Great Wars: lots of poems and paintings but novels? Testament of Youth and A Farewell to Arms used the war as a backdrop. All Quiet on the Western Front, perhaps. Any others from anywhere near that time? More recently we've had books like Birdsong but are they based on the war or on war films? Spanish Civil War? Picasso's Guernica. Second World War? Any number of great films but literature?
More recently Vietnam and Iraq have given us quantity if not quality. Was the Korean War's Catch 22 the last great war novel?
Catch 22 is about WW2. What about War and Peace?
So not really Catch 22 then. War and Peace I've never read. Was Tolstoy old enough to have served?
Vietnam and Iraq have produced any number of novels and memoirs, so perhaps it has become easier to find a publisher. Then again, did anyone bother to write a Falklands novel? I seem to remember a fuss about the Bolshevik BBC refusing to broadcast a play about it. But at least until recently, I'd say the question is why poetry rather than novels?
There were several about life in the Army in Northern Ireland. The authors' names escape my memory - did Alan Judd do one?
'Not going to comply with track and trace out of protest'?
Do these people realize that making that argument automatically exposes them as hypocrites? The entire premise of the moral outrage against Cummings is that endangering public health is the worst thing in the world, so when the exact same people then conclude 'therefore I can go ahead and endanger public health as much as I like', it reveals them to be rank hypocrites.
If an authority figure committed a murder, would you be justified in saying 'Well, now I'm not going to comply with the laws against murder out of protest'? These ridiculous people apparently think that would be morally justifiable.
I wonder who is manning these phone banks and email factories hounding MPs?
'Not going to comply with track and trace out of protest'?
Do these people realize that making that argument automatically exposes them as hypocrites? The entire premise of the moral outrage against Cummings is that endangering public health is the worst thing in the world, so when the exact same people then conclude 'therefore I can go ahead and endanger public health as much as I like', it reveals them to be rank hypocrites.
If an authority figure committed a murder, would you be justified in saying 'Well, now I'm not going to comply with the laws against murder out of protest'? These ridiculous people apparently think that would be morally justifiable.
As Philip Thompson stated below people will now no longer follow the advice and follow their personal judgement / desire
Out of the Nordic countries (Norway, Sweden, Denmark - with similar climates, culture, societies, economies, population densities, and physical connectivity, and healthcare quality - all the factors that feed into infectivity and death tolls):
Per capita death rates:
Economic impact forecast:
And Sweden were hoping to protect their care homes and elderly - which has completely failed. They were hoping to get sufficient herd immunity to protect against a second wave - and they're nowhere near.
And their death rate has plateaued around 60-70 per day (which would be around 400-500 per day scaled up to the UK).
If Norway did lock down too hard, then that means they've now got far more scope going forwards, and they erred on the side of saving a hell of a lot more lives and preserving their economies better, at the cost of a couple of difficult months. Best side on which to err, really.
Point of order, Denmarks population density is completely different to Norway and Sweden.
Norway 15 P/km2 Sweden 25 P/Km2 Denmark 137 P/Km2
Denmark is more densely populated than France or Spain for example.
Sweden doing so much worse than Denmark is a big problem for those who think lockdown wasnt important.
Very good point; my apologies. Denmark would have every excuse for being a lot worse hit than Sweden, all else being equal.
Need to be careful with raw population density figures. Urban density probably matters more. Vast swathes of nothingness won't prevent spread, an absence of mass public transport etc might.
Fair enough: we can see the distribution of density on the following map.
Denmark definitely looks more vulnerable than Sweden
The German achievement looks all the more impressive, too. They really are a lot better at a lot of things than we are. I think it would be worth figuring out why that is. They are an obvious role model to emulate, it's odd we spend so much time looking to the US.
Agreed there, certainly.
And it's plausible that Norway could indeed cope without a full lockdown but with restrictions maybe a bit tougher than the ones Sweden used at the current time. Their distribution is almost ideal to cope with something like this, and their social/cultural setup likewise.
You can see why Sweden thought it might be practical initially, but I think they should have shifted tack when it wasn't working so well. Very good job Denmark didn't try it.
And we should be looking very carefully at everything Germany has done and is doing through this as the most useful comparable country that is doing comparatively well.
"Why we remember wars but forget plagues Pandemics aren't represented in film or literature because they're too boring, too horrific and too depressing By Sean Thomas"
Terrific piece by Sean. I pretty-much agree with him. A month or so back my Agent said he was looking forward to first-hand writing on this virus and I thought at the time, 'oh no.' I've just forwarded him Sean's essay.
I don't think Coronavirus lit will be filling up people's Christmas stockings this year.
Sean did miss the film Contagion, which is more like a documentary and well worth watching, as well as a host of other virus films:
Is this Sean chap right though? First, the relative shortage of plague literature might be because actually it is a boring subject -- person X gets ill and either dies or recovers -- rinse and repeat thousands of times. The only heroism possible is on the medical front, and until recently the quacks with their leeches and potions were not much use and even now, how filmic are academics arguing about spreadsheets? House had an episode with some sort of plague iirc (no spoilers!).
And is Sean even right about war? There is not much literature about war itself considering how much time we've spent on it. Take the Crimean, Boer and Great Wars: lots of poems and paintings but novels? Testament of Youth and A Farewell to Arms used the war as a backdrop. All Quiet on the Western Front, perhaps. Any others from anywhere near that time? More recently we've had books like Birdsong but are they based on the war or on war films? Spanish Civil War? Picasso's Guernica. Second World War? Any number of great films but literature?
More recently Vietnam and Iraq have given us quantity if not quality. Was the Korean War's Catch 22 the last great war novel?
Catch 22 is about WW2. What about War and Peace?
So not really Catch 22 then. War and Peace I've never read. Was Tolstoy old enough to have served?
Vietnam and Iraq have produced any number of novels and memoirs, so perhaps it has become easier to find a publisher. Then again, did anyone bother to write a Falklands novel? I seem to remember a fuss about the Bolshevik BBC refusing to broadcast a play about it. But at least until recently, I'd say the question is why poetry rather than novels?
There’s An Ungentlemanly Act on the original invasion, which features Ian Richardson at his suave best as Rex Hunt.
'Not going to comply with track and trace out of protest'?
Do these people realize that making that argument automatically exposes them as hypocrites? The entire premise of the moral outrage against Cummings is that endangering public health is the worst thing in the world, so when the exact same people then conclude 'therefore I can go ahead and endanger public health as much as I like', it reveals them to be rank hypocrites.
If an authority figure committed a murder, would you be justified in saying 'Well, now I'm not going to comply with the laws against murder out of protest'? These ridiculous people apparently think that would be morally justifiable.
I wonder who is manning these phone banks and email factories hounding MPs?
Is your premiss that this is the work of someone like Owen Jones and his Twitter followers rather than actual Conservative voters? Are you actually so naive that you think that Conservative voters do not care about this, and that polling such as in the Daily Mail is just fake news?
Generation Kill/One Bullet Away (packaged as one as its the same story told through two distinctively different POVs) The Junior Officers' Reading Club Among You
Would recommend all four very highly.
Vietnam is also well served with memoirs, start with Dispatches and work on from there.
And is Sean even right about war? There is not much literature about war itself considering how much time we've spent on it. Take the Crimean, Boer and Great Wars: lots of poems and paintings but novels? ... Any number of great films but literature?
The Boy's Own Commando Comics? They appear to be required reading for some of the anti-Europe brigade. We'll show the filthy bosche!!!
Commando Comics: another ScotCon gift to the world. From the same stable as The Beano, The Dandy, Oor Wullie, The Broons, the Dundee Courier and the Sunday Post. DC Thomson.
Incidentally, not widely known but very good is a trilogy on the Second World War - The Eighth Champion of Christendom, Reluctant Odyssey and Warfare Accomplished by Edith Pargeter. She interviewed servicemen as they returned to civilian life and distilled their stories into the adventures of one man in three different theatres. And she writes very well, particularly in not pulling punches about the horrors of war and the traumas they cause. Well worth reading if you can get hold of it.
Have you read Parade's End? Very highly thought of, but I have never come across a novel where each and every character is so utterly and irredeemably awful, not - I think - intentionally in every case. I mean there's Vanity Fair but at least one can fancy Becky Sharp.
I refer you to the fact that I predicted this outcome from Day 1. If it were up to me, the story would have died there, but it has received such fanatical media attention, not to mention 50 squillion consecutive headers on here, until this one, that I don't feel the slightest bit bad about rubbing it in.
Give it a rest will you. You’re so boring and add nothing to the discussion.
If being right from the moment the story broke is nothing, then I compare very favourably to those who contributed less than nothing
Once again, you’re adding nothing to the discussion, you’re just merely attempting to provoke a reaction. You’re a troll and nothing else.
Yes, of course people who dare not to agree with the great Gallowgate are trolls. Only your opinions are permitted, your will is absolute.
But do you sometimes look around you and wonder why the reality of the world doesn't match your immaculate thoughts, even though you're always right?
I suppose it must be the world that is wrong
And there you are, doing it again.
I disagree with @Philip_Thompson on a lot of things but at least he doesn’t post everything for the purpose of provoking a reaction. You’re not interested in any debate or discussion, you just want to wind everyone up.
I have no idea what you're interested in, and honestly I don't much care. Feel free not to read if you don't like it. You don't seem to be able to handle opposing points of view, so why you should choose to expose yourself to them is a mystery to me.
You claim to not like Twitter yet you perpetually whinge about it, so maybe sort yourself out first.
Maybe sort out your own hypocrisy, since you love those posters who mindlessly copy and paste hundreds of Tweets a day without comment in a rather bot-like fashion, but then attack posters who are actually capable of formulating arguments on their own?
And is Sean even right about war? There is not much literature about war itself considering how much time we've spent on it. Take the Crimean, Boer and Great Wars: lots of poems and paintings but novels? ... Any number of great films but literature?
The Boy's Own Commando Comics? They appear to be required reading for some of the anti-Europe brigade. We'll show the filthy bosche!!!
You shouldn't underestimate our achievements in 1918, 1945 and 1966!
What happened in 1966?
The greatest victory of them all against the Germans. ' World Cup Willie, famous for the cup...'
And on the earlier theme of Great War novels - you've got Barbusse Le Feu, Mottram Spanish Farm Trilogy, Junger Storm of Steel/In Stahlgewittern, Hasek The Good Soldier Svejk ...
Buchan’s Mr Standfast? Or do you think of that as a spy novel rather than a war novel?
Spy actually to my mind (though I prefer his John Macnab and historical stuff). There's also Childers' the Riddle of the Sands, which is a spy one so OT. And we were discussing Biggles novels some months back too - wasn't W. E. Johns a Great War veteran? There are lots of great memoirs of intrepid birdmen - or at least the ones who survived to write them - including 'Memoirs of an old balloonatic' being my latest find - but novels? Derek Robinson's revisionist hatchet jobs on Biggles are disqualified as retrospective according to the criterion enunciated earlier by one of us.
The phenomenon that may have been observed in the OP might be the increase of people being able to write coherent and entertaining stories of what they actually did.
"Why we remember wars but forget plagues Pandemics aren't represented in film or literature because they're too boring, too horrific and too depressing By Sean Thomas"
Terrific piece by Sean. I pretty-much agree with him. A month or so back my Agent said he was looking forward to first-hand writing on this virus and I thought at the time, 'oh no.' I've just forwarded him Sean's essay.
I don't think Coronavirus lit will be filling up people's Christmas stockings this year.
Sean did miss the film Contagion, which is more like a documentary and well worth watching, as well as a host of other virus films:
Is this Sean chap right though? First, the relative shortage of plague literature might be because actually it is a boring subject -- person X gets ill and either dies or recovers -- rinse and repeat thousands of times. The only heroism possible is on the medical front, and until recently the quacks with their leeches and potions were not much use and even now, how filmic are academics arguing about spreadsheets? House had an episode with some sort of plague iirc (no spoilers!).
And is Sean even right about war? There is not much literature about war itself considering how much time we've spent on it. Take the Crimean, Boer and Great Wars: lots of poems and paintings but novels? Testament of Youth and A Farewell to Arms used the war as a backdrop. All Quiet on the Western Front, perhaps. Any others from anywhere near that time? More recently we've had books like Birdsong but are they based on the war or on war films? Spanish Civil War? Picasso's Guernica. Second World War? Any number of great films but literature?
More recently Vietnam and Iraq have given us quantity if not quality. Was the Korean War's Catch 22 the last great war novel?
Catch 22 is about WW2. What about War and Peace?
So not really Catch 22 then. War and Peace I've never read. Was Tolstoy old enough to have served?
Vietnam and Iraq have produced any number of novels and memoirs, so perhaps it has become easier to find a publisher. Then again, did anyone bother to write a Falklands novel? I seem to remember a fuss about the Bolshevik BBC refusing to broadcast a play about it. But at least until recently, I'd say the question is why poetry rather than novels?
There were several about life in the Army in Northern Ireland. The authors' names escape my memory - did Alan Judd do one?
"Why we remember wars but forget plagues Pandemics aren't represented in film or literature because they're too boring, too horrific and too depressing By Sean Thomas"
Terrific piece by Sean. I pretty-much agree with him. A month or so back my Agent said he was looking forward to first-hand writing on this virus and I thought at the time, 'oh no.' I've just forwarded him Sean's essay.
I don't think Coronavirus lit will be filling up people's Christmas stockings this year.
Sean did miss the film Contagion, which is more like a documentary and well worth watching, as well as a host of other virus films:
Is this Sean chap right though? First, the relative shortage of plague literature might be because actually it is a boring subject -- person X gets ill and either dies or recovers -- rinse and repeat thousands of times. The only heroism possible is on the medical front, and until recently the quacks with their leeches and potions were not much use and even now, how filmic are academics arguing about spreadsheets? House had an episode with some sort of plague iirc (no spoilers!).
And is Sean even right about war? There is not much literature about war itself considering how much time we've spent on it. Take the Crimean, Boer and Great Wars: lots of poems and paintings but novels? Testament of Youth and A Farewell to Arms used the war as a backdrop. All Quiet on the Western Front, perhaps. Any others from anywhere near that time? More recently we've had books like Birdsong but are they based on the war or on war films? Spanish Civil War? Picasso's Guernica. Second World War? Any number of great films but literature?
More recently Vietnam and Iraq have given us quantity if not quality. Was the Korean War's Catch 22 the last great war novel?
Catch 22 is about WW2. What about War and Peace?
So not really Catch 22 then. War and Peace I've never read. Was Tolstoy old enough to have served?
Vietnam and Iraq have produced any number of novels and memoirs, so perhaps it has become easier to find a publisher. Then again, did anyone bother to write a Falklands novel? I seem to remember a fuss about the Bolshevik BBC refusing to broadcast a play about it. But at least until recently, I'd say the question is why poetry rather than novels?
There were several about life in the Army in Northern Ireland. The authors' names escape my memory - did Alan Judd do one?
And is Sean even right about war? There is not much literature about war itself considering how much time we've spent on it. Take the Crimean, Boer and Great Wars: lots of poems and paintings but novels? ... Any number of great films but literature?
The Boy's Own Commando Comics? They appear to be required reading for some of the anti-Europe brigade. We'll show the filthy bosche!!!
You shouldn't underestimate our achievements in 1918, 1945 and 1966!
What happened in 1966?
Revolver was released, can't think of anything else..
Starmer's big idea is a Bill of Attainder against Cummings? 'Cos that's never been used as a tool of autocrats and won't look like a partisan witch-hunt at all!
Let him go ahead. As long as he realizes that he'll be declaring total war on a government with a landslide majority and zero fucks to give.
Hope it's worth it, Keir!
SKS isn't that stupid.
Agree - he's played this brilliantly from the start "never interrupt your enemy while he is making mistakes" - from a political point of view its better for Labour if Cummings stays - an eternal reminder of "one law for them, another for us". A more difficult calculus for SKS is what's in the national interest.....he may conclude "A Labour government from 2024" and find that coincides with what's best for Labour...
The smart move is to completely sideline the government and PM and make an appeal directly to the people about civic duty. Acknowledge that it's even more difficult to live by these rules because of the government's position on Cummings but make clear that they are still the right rules.
"Today I'm asking the people of the UK to continue observing the social distancing rules and to comply with contact tracers if they are asked to isolate. I know this is something that is even more difficult to do now than it was last week because of actions taken by the PM and Mr Cummings, but it is still the right thing to do. I believe that all of the people in the UK have an extraordinary capacity to do the right thing when asked. This doesn't mean we are letting the government or Mr Cummings off the hook and neither should you, but these actions by him should not be allowed to interfere with our ability to reopen the economy and keep our people and NHS safe from this virus."
That kind of statement makes Starmer the de facto PM and people will see him as PM material.
"Starmer the de facto PM"
Good job he leads a party in Parliament with a majority to pass legislation then. Oh...wait....
"Why we remember wars but forget plagues Pandemics aren't represented in film or literature because they're too boring, too horrific and too depressing By Sean Thomas"
Terrific piece by Sean. I pretty-much agree with him. A month or so back my Agent said he was looking forward to first-hand writing on this virus and I thought at the time, 'oh no.' I've just forwarded him Sean's essay.
I don't think Coronavirus lit will be filling up people's Christmas stockings this year.
Sean did miss the film Contagion, which is more like a documentary and well worth watching, as well as a host of other virus films:
Is this Sean chap right though? First, the relative shortage of plague literature might be because actually it is a boring subject -- person X gets ill and either dies or recovers -- rinse and repeat thousands of times. The only heroism possible is on the medical front, and until recently the quacks with their leeches and potions were not much use and even now, how filmic are academics arguing about spreadsheets? House had an episode with some sort of plague iirc (no spoilers!).
And is Sean even right about war? There is not much literature about war itself considering how much time we've spent on it. Take the Crimean, Boer and Great Wars: lots of poems and paintings but novels? Testament of Youth and A Farewell to Arms used the war as a backdrop. All Quiet on the Western Front, perhaps. Any others from anywhere near that time? More recently we've had books like Birdsong but are they based on the war or on war films? Spanish Civil War? Picasso's Guernica. Second World War? Any number of great films but literature?
More recently Vietnam and Iraq have given us quantity if not quality. Was the Korean War's Catch 22 the last great war novel?
Catch 22 is about WW2. What about War and Peace?
So not really Catch 22 then. War and Peace I've never read. Was Tolstoy old enough to have served?
Vietnam and Iraq have produced any number of novels and memoirs, so perhaps it has become easier to find a publisher. Then again, did anyone bother to write a Falklands novel? I seem to remember a fuss about the Bolshevik BBC refusing to broadcast a play about it. But at least until recently, I'd say the question is why poetry rather than novels?
There were several about life in the Army in Northern Ireland. The authors' names escape my memory - did Alan Judd do one?
'Not going to comply with track and trace out of protest'?
Do these people realize that making that argument automatically exposes them as hypocrites? The entire premise of the moral outrage against Cummings is that endangering public health is the worst thing in the world, so when the exact same people then conclude 'therefore I can go ahead and endanger public health as much as I like', it reveals them to be rank hypocrites.
If an authority figure committed a murder, would you be justified in saying 'Well, now I'm not going to comply with the laws against murder out of protest'? These ridiculous people apparently think that would be morally justifiable.
A totally ridiculous and disproportionate analogy. I think what people write to their MPs and what they may do might be different things, though. What you wish to ignore from the outrageous Cummings/Johnson fiasco is that it has undermined public faith in the government at a time of crisis. where there are grey areas people will almost certainly err on the side of what is most convenient to themselves and their families. Well done Cummings, you fucking useless fraud!
'Not going to comply with track and trace out of protest'?
Do these people realize that making that argument automatically exposes them as hypocrites? The entire premise of the moral outrage against Cummings is that endangering public health is the worst thing in the world, so when the exact same people then conclude 'therefore I can go ahead and endanger public health as much as I like', it reveals them to be rank hypocrites.
If an authority figure committed a murder, would you be justified in saying 'Well, now I'm not going to comply with the laws against murder out of protest'? These ridiculous people apparently think that would be morally justifiable.
I wonder who is manning these phone banks and email factories hounding MPs?
Is your premiss that this is the work of someone like Owen Jones and his Twitter followers rather than actual Conservative voters? Are you actually so naive that you think that Conservative voters do not care about this, and that polling such as in the Daily Mail is just fake news?
I would put anyone who contacted their MP about what Dom did back in April on a watch list.
Have they nothing better to do ? Definitely worth the watching.
'Not going to comply with track and trace out of protest'?
Do these people realize that making that argument automatically exposes them as hypocrites? The entire premise of the moral outrage against Cummings is that endangering public health is the worst thing in the world, so when the exact same people then conclude 'therefore I can go ahead and endanger public health as much as I like', it reveals them to be rank hypocrites.
If an authority figure committed a murder, would you be justified in saying 'Well, now I'm not going to comply with the laws against murder out of protest'? These ridiculous people apparently think that would be morally justifiable.
I wonder who is manning these phone banks and email factories hounding MPs?
It is genuinely impossible to know whether that is a joke or whether you are serious.
Generation Kill/One Bullet Away (packaged as one as its the same story told through two distinctively different POVs) The Junior Officers' Reading Club Among You
Would recommend all four very highly.
Vietnam is also well served with memoirs, start with Dispatches and work on from there.
"Why we remember wars but forget plagues Pandemics aren't represented in film or literature because they're too boring, too horrific and too depressing By Sean Thomas"
Terrific piece by Sean. I pretty-much agree with him. A month or so back my Agent said he was looking forward to first-hand writing on this virus and I thought at the time, 'oh no.' I've just forwarded him Sean's essay.
I don't think Coronavirus lit will be filling up people's Christmas stockings this year.
Sean did miss the film Contagion, which is more like a documentary and well worth watching, as well as a host of other virus films:
Is this Sean chap right though? First, the relative shortage of plague literature might be because actually it is a boring subject -- person X gets ill and either dies or recovers -- rinse and repeat thousands of times. The only heroism possible is on the medical front, and until recently the quacks with their leeches and potions were not much use and even now, how filmic are academics arguing about spreadsheets? House had an episode with some sort of plague iirc (no spoilers!).
And is Sean even right about war? There is not much literature about war itself considering how much time we've spent on it. Take the Crimean, Boer and Great Wars: lots of poems and paintings but novels? Testament of Youth and A Farewell to Arms used the war as a backdrop. All Quiet on the Western Front, perhaps. Any others from anywhere near that time? More recently we've had books like Birdsong but are they based on the war or on war films? Spanish Civil War? Picasso's Guernica. Second World War? Any number of great films but literature?
More recently Vietnam and Iraq have given us quantity if not quality. Was the Korean War's Catch 22 the last great war novel?
Catch 22 is about WW2. What about War and Peace?
So not really Catch 22 then. War and Peace I've never read. Was Tolstoy old enough to have served?
Vietnam and Iraq have produced any number of novels and memoirs, so perhaps it has become easier to find a publisher. Then again, did anyone bother to write a Falklands novel? I seem to remember a fuss about the Bolshevik BBC refusing to broadcast a play about it. But at least until recently, I'd say the question is why poetry rather than novels?
War and Peace is great. You need to battle through the first 100 or so pages as vast numbers of characters are introduced in a bewildering blizzard whilst nothing much happens. But it is hugely worth the effort. And Tolstoy wasn't born till 1828 I believe. But he did serve on the Crimean.
Far from being mid-table, it looks like the UK has been worst in Europe. I really hope we aren't lifting lockdown too soon.
The Italians are much slower at releasing their excess death statistics, so I think they will still have a higher death rate than us when all the figures are in.
By this stage we should be able to lockdown smarter - loosen some things, tighten others - so that we can combine greater freedom with lower R.
By my reckoning there's probably something closer to a 20 seat majority while Dom is still in post. Hopefully it's lower or its pushed the government into a minorty position. That's the only pressure that will force Boris to make the change.
What government legislation are they going to vote against? And do they think 2019 Tory voters - 97% of whom still support the Tories even according to the worst polls - will forgive that kind of attack on their own Prime Minister? Most Tory voters' allegiance is still rock-steady, despite a week of endless media onslaught.
Starmer's big idea is a Bill of Attainder against Cummings? 'Cos that's never been used as a tool of autocrats and won't look like a partisan witch-hunt at all!
Let him go ahead. As long as he realizes that he'll be declaring total war on a government with a landslide majority and zero fucks to give.
Hope it's worth it, Keir!
SKS isn't that stupid.
Agree - he's played this brilliantly from the start "never interrupt your enemy while he is making mistakes" - from a political point of view its better for Labour if Cummings stays - an eternal reminder of "one law for them, another for us". A more difficult calculus for SKS is what's in the national interest.....he may conclude "A Labour government from 2024" and find that coincides with what's best for Labour...
The smart move is to completely sideline the government and PM and make an appeal directly to the people about civic duty. Acknowledge that it's even more difficult to live by these rules because of the government's position on Cummings but make clear that they are still the right rules.
"Today I'm asking the people of the UK to continue observing the social distancing rules and to comply with contact tracers if they are asked to isolate. I know this is something that is even more difficult to do now than it was last week because of actions taken by the PM and Mr Cummings, but it is still the right thing to do. I believe that all of the people in the UK have an extraordinary capacity to do the right thing when asked. This doesn't mean we are letting the government or Mr Cummings off the hook and neither should you, but these actions by him should not be allowed to interfere with our ability to reopen the economy and keep our people and NHS safe from this virus."
That kind of statement makes Starmer the de facto PM and people will see him as PM material.
That is really excellent. You have gone from a Tory party member to SKS's speech writer in a matter of days. Very impressive.
Some value competent governance over partisanship; I think Max is one. (Though I doubt he'll vote Labour at the next election, that's irrelevant.)
Olivia Manning's Fortunes of War sextet(?) and Waugh's Sword of Honour trilogy are of course fantastic if not entirely traditional contributions to war literature.
Out of the Nordic countries (Norway, Sweden, Denmark - with similar climates, culture, societies, economies, population densities, and physical connectivity, and healthcare quality - all the factors that feed into infectivity and death tolls):
Per capita death rates:
Economic impact forecast:
And Sweden were hoping to protect their care homes and elderly - which has completely failed. They were hoping to get sufficient herd immunity to protect against a second wave - and they're nowhere near.
And their death rate has plateaued around 60-70 per day (which would be around 400-500 per day scaled up to the UK).
If Norway did lock down too hard, then that means they've now got far more scope going forwards, and they erred on the side of saving a hell of a lot more lives and preserving their economies better, at the cost of a couple of difficult months. Best side on which to err, really.
Point of order, Denmarks population density is completely different to Norway and Sweden.
Norway 15 P/km2 Sweden 25 P/Km2 Denmark 137 P/Km2
Denmark is more densely populated than France or Spain for example.
Sweden doing so much worse than Denmark is a big problem for those who think lockdown wasnt important.
Very good point; my apologies. Denmark would have every excuse for being a lot worse hit than Sweden, all else being equal.
Need to be careful with raw population density figures. Urban density probably matters more. Vast swathes of nothingness won't prevent spread, an absence of mass public transport etc might.
Fair enough: we can see the distribution of density on the following map.
Denmark definitely looks more vulnerable than Sweden
Definitely. And Britain more than almost any other European nation too.
What works for Sweden there's no reason whatsoever to suggest would work for us.
That map does not show urban density.
Would you prefer this one? (I do like this representation, to be fair):
. Then again, did anyone bother to write a Falklands novel? I seem to remember a fuss about the Bolshevik BBC refusing to broadcast a play about it
' a fuss'.
sigh.
It was originally commissioned by the BBC in 1983, for production and broadcast in 1986, but was subsequently shelved by Controller of BBC One Michael Grade due to its pro-Margaret Thatcher stance and alleged jingoistic tone.
I think the beeb went forwards with Tumbledown and not this, which was finally shown in 2002.
Falklands probably leaves its mark more in things like This Is England but then you've also got Raymond Briggs' The Tin-Pot Foreign General and the Old Iron Woman
I refer you to the fact that I predicted this outcome from Day 1. If it were up to me, the story would have died there, but it has received such fanatical media attention, not to mention 50 squillion consecutive headers on here, until this one, that I don't feel the slightest bit bad about rubbing it in.
Give it a rest will you. You’re so boring and add nothing to the discussion.
If being right from the moment the story broke is nothing, then I compare very favourably to those who contributed less than nothing
Once again, you’re adding nothing to the discussion, you’re just merely attempting to provoke a reaction. You’re a troll and nothing else.
Yes, of course people who dare not to agree with the great Gallowgate are trolls. Only your opinions are permitted, your will is absolute.
But do you sometimes look around you and wonder why the reality of the world doesn't match your immaculate thoughts, even though you're always right?
I suppose it must be the world that is wrong
And there you are, doing it again.
I disagree with @Philip_Thompson on a lot of things but at least he doesn’t post everything for the purpose of provoking a reaction. You’re not interested in any debate or discussion, you just want to wind everyone up.
I have no idea what you're interested in, and honestly I don't much care. Feel free not to read if you don't like it. You don't seem to be able to handle opposing points of view, so why you should choose to expose yourself to them is a mystery to me.
You claim to not like Twitter yet you perpetually whinge about it, so maybe sort yourself out first.
Maybe sort out your own hypocrisy, since you love those posters who mindlessly copy and paste hundreds of Tweets a day without comment in a rather bot-like fashion, but then attack posters who are actually capable of formulating arguments on their own?
I only attack you for being a troll. If you don’t like it, maybe don’t be a troll.
And is Sean even right about war? There is not much literature about war itself considering how much time we've spent on it. Take the Crimean, Boer and Great Wars: lots of poems and paintings but novels? ... Any number of great films but literature?
The Boy's Own Commando Comics? They appear to be required reading for some of the anti-Europe brigade. We'll show the filthy bosche!!!
You shouldn't underestimate our achievements in 1918, 1945 and 1966!
What happened in 1966?
Revolver was released, can't think of anything else..
Comments
How did that work out again?
https://twitter.com/Tom_Mullen/status/1265927886994882560?s=20
Denmark definitely looks more vulnerable than Sweden
Balfour is an even more complicated case, because he became PM in 1902 and resigned in favour of the Leader of the Opposition in 1905, going on to fight (and lose) three general elections in 1906 and 1910 as Leader of the Opposition himself. However, he was First Lord of the Treasury and Leader of the Unionists in the Commons in 1900, and since peers were not supposed to campaign at the time he was effectively the PM for voting purposes.
So yes, it stacks up in reality as a claim. However, it’s just a little more complicated than that.
But we can't do that because it would not trace 100 per cent of contacts so instead we will spend two days writing an app, except it is not two days, it takes months if it ever happens at all.
It's past time waiting for Johnson to do the right thing, and complaining when he doesn't. Other people have to do the right thing in his stead. I hope Starmer - and others - do as you suggest.
Stay Alert, Control the Virus, Save lives =
Easily survives travel north to castle
Labour under Blair certainly broke a few promises/lied on Tuition Fees, National Insurance and Iraq. Boris is on another level though.
Half of contacts is better than nothing as it will take a good bite out of R for this infection focus.
And a pen and paper job would automatically get the main contacts - the school class, the No. 45 bus at 1734 on Monday, the Green Man ... and not waste time with twats with mobile phones passing 5 seconds in your company.
As for the opposition he's faced, you can only defeat the opposition that's in front of you.
But do you sometimes look around you and wonder why the reality of the world doesn't match your immaculate thoughts, even though you're always right?
I suppose it must be the world that is wrong
What works for Sweden there's no reason whatsoever to suggest would work for us.
The scenario that seems closest to me is George III and the 3rd Earl of Bute. That ended in tears for the latter...
We can't dissolve the electorate and choose another one
I disagree with @Philip_Thompson on a lot of things but at least he doesn’t post everything for the purpose of provoking a reaction. You’re not interested in any debate or discussion, you just want to wind everyone up.
We will probably send our year 6 back since infection rates in London are currently so low, but I think the decision would be different if we lived in some other parts of the country.
But I also have happy memories of Commando comics - definitely better drawn than some of their competitors, who couldn't draw a Panzer IV to save their lives.
Later peeps!
https://www.ft.com/content/6b4c784e-c259-4ca4-9a82-648ffde71bf0
Far from being mid-table, it looks like the UK has been worst in Europe.
I really hope we aren't lifting lockdown too soon.
What Cummings did was to break isolation, putting many other members of the public at risk: He could easily have killed people. The fact that by the grace of fortune he was not forced to stop en-route & managed to isolate in the family house in Durham just means that he (and those whom he might have infected) got lucky. They still ended up with their son in hospital, where it’s entirely possible that his wife infected a bunch of people.
For me personally there’s no question that Cummings’ actions were worse than fiddling a few £1000. He put lives at risk.
(I still predict that he will stay in post & this too shall pass, but the damage will be done.)
You need to realise your constant negative posting is not going to change a single mind on here.
Interesting life, but for geography his oeuvre might have been about HM forces.
'Germany happened to be closer than England, I went to a Wehrmacht recruiting office to enlist'
Vietnam and Iraq have produced any number of novels and memoirs, so perhaps it has become easier to find a publisher. Then again, did anyone bother to write a Falklands novel? I seem to remember a fuss about the Bolshevik BBC refusing to broadcast a play about it. But at least until recently, I'd say the question is why poetry rather than novels?
Do these people realize that making that argument automatically exposes them as hypocrites? The entire premise of the moral outrage against Cummings is that endangering public health is the worst thing in the world, so when the exact same people then conclude 'therefore I can go ahead and endanger public health as much as I like', it reveals them to be rank hypocrites.
If an authority figure committed a murder, would you be justified in saying 'Well, now I'm not going to comply with the laws against murder out of protest'? These ridiculous people apparently think that would be morally justifiable.
Japan 7 deaths per million
UK 540 deaths per million
Israel 31 deaths per million
Japan didn't lock people up. It had voluntary measures.
And it's plausible that Norway could indeed cope without a full lockdown but with restrictions maybe a bit tougher than the ones Sweden used at the current time. Their distribution is almost ideal to cope with something like this, and their social/cultural setup likewise.
You can see why Sweden thought it might be practical initially, but I think they should have shifted tack when it wasn't working so well. Very good job Denmark didn't try it.
And we should be looking very carefully at everything Germany has done and is doing through this as the most useful comparable country that is doing comparatively well.
Generation Kill/One Bullet Away (packaged as one as its the same story told through two distinctively different POVs)
The Junior Officers' Reading Club
Among You
Would recommend all four very highly.
Vietnam is also well served with memoirs, start with Dispatches and work on from there.
Have they nothing better to do ? Definitely worth the watching.
Mind you, with regard to track and trace. I watched the preamble for the Welsh roll out on BBC Wales. That has the makings of a comparable shambles.
And Tolstoy wasn't born till 1828 I believe. But he did serve on the Crimean.
By this stage we should be able to lockdown smarter - loosen some things, tighten others - so that we can combine greater freedom with lower R.
(Though I doubt he'll vote Labour at the next election, that's irrelevant.)
(I do like this representation, to be fair):
' a fuss'.
sigh.
It was originally commissioned by the BBC in 1983, for production and broadcast in 1986, but was subsequently shelved by Controller of BBC One Michael Grade due to its pro-Margaret Thatcher stance and alleged jingoistic tone.
I think the beeb went forwards with Tumbledown and not this, which was finally shown in 2002.
Falklands probably leaves its mark more in things like This Is England but then you've also got Raymond Briggs' The Tin-Pot Foreign General and the Old Iron Woman