Undefined discussion subject.
Comments
-
You’d have thought a few key figures in this government would be very chary of a precedent that bullying accusations are a bar to a peerage. But perhaps they don’t think that far ahead.MikeSmithson said:
Except we now have an extremist Tory PM prepared to abandon traditional constitutional element by only wanting to reward a speaker who has pleased them. Any government that has Cummings as a key figure is not in a position to give lectures on bullying.BluestBlue said:
By electing someone like Corbyn as leader, to my mind Labour were to the ones to declare total war on us. If he had somehow managed to win, that would have been the end of the British economy and society as most people know it.OnlyLivingBoy said:
Some Tory posters on this site have similar issues, believing that they have to fight dirty because Blair somehow cheated by winning in 1997, rather than merely running on a popular centrist platform against an exhausted and demoralised government. Tories don't have a divine right to run this country, the peaceful transfer of power between competing political parties with a well informed electorate helped by a fair and independent media should be something that we all aspire to, instead of some kind of politics as total war mindset in which the truth is the first casualty.AlastairMeeks said:
Actually, a large part of the problem is their residual paranoia from that time. All this rubbish about a deep state trying to thwart them comes from the belief that government was somehow rigged against them.HYUFD said:
They were out of power for 13 years from 1997 to 2010 but managed to surviveAlastairMeeks said:At some point the Conservatives are going to be out of power. I hope they can wrap up well for the cold.
Since then, they've managed to acquire a dull, normal-looking mask, but we know what lies beneath, because we've seen it with our own eyes for the last 5 years and aren't going to forget any time soon.
In the face of that, the Tories are not showing even 10% of the ruthlessness they should to ensure that Labour never goes down that path again.0 -
Watson was quite clear at the time, that he was acting from party political motives - anything to get the Tories. He has never apologised, and even tried to carry on the claims after it was quite clear that it was a shambles.Wulfrun_Phil said:
In Bercow's case, it's by no means as simple as that. Firstly, there is the matter of his alleged bullying conduct towards several members of his staff, and the fact that it is the subject of an unresolved parliamentary investigation. Secondly, precedent and tradition meant nothing to Bercow in 2019 when he was quite content to throw the parliamentary rule book out of the window to suit his own political purposes. It is not a matter even that he disregarded neutrality in order to stand in the way of the government of the day (or "failed to please" as you put it), it is that he trashed precedent in order to do so.MikeSmithson said:
Johnson has now created a new rule - outgoing speakers only get elevated to a peerage if they have pleased the government of the day. That is a constitutional outrage.Fishing said:"In blocking a peerage to Bercow Johnson is also going against the advice of Bercow’s successor, Lindsay Hoyle. Back in December he urged Downing Street to follow “custom and practice”."
I have respect for Lindsay Hoyle, certainly after Bercow, but he's hardly uninterested in this row, is he?
"Real Tories don’t ignore longstanding traditions."
They do if they don't make sense in a particular case, as is arguably true here.
I personally think honours should be earned, rather than be given automatically for doing your job.
Anyway, if the HLAC decided not to recommend Bercow, at least until the allegations are settled, then wouldn't it be a breach of convention for Boris to nominate him?
Likewise, it is reasonable to refuse Karie Murphy's nomination whilst she is under active investigation for alleged anti-semitic offences. Bercow could hardly be granted a Lordship if Murphy is refused on similar grounds. So at least there is consistency in the PM's actions.
The refusal that I have difficulty with is that of Tom Watson. Whatever his errors in believing the paedophile accuser, he was not the only one to be taken in and his motives were good. He acted in good faith to try and shake the cage in the face of what he thought was an establishment cover up. He's being refused a peerage for no more than an error of judgement made in good faith, despite decades of long service to the Labour Party.
On Bercow - House of Lords Appointments Commission rejected Bercow's nomination. Is OGH saying that the PM should have overruled them?
On the bullying allegations - those who reject them are saying that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Leakey is not telling the truth.3 -
Indeed, so much the pity. They should rebrand themselves The Popular Front of Little England, aka The Brexit Party LiteBeibheirli_C said:@MikeSmithson said "Real Tories don’t ignore longstanding traditions"
Real Tories are not in charge.
1 -
Though they did elect Obama in 2008 and 2012NickPalmer said:
You didn't agree with the past leader of the opposition so you feel total ruthlessness is needed now? I see.BluestBlue said:
By electing someone like Corbyn as leader, to my mind Labour were to the ones to declare total war on us. If he had somehow managed to win, that would have been the end of the British economy and society as most people know it.
Since then, they've managed to acquire a dull, normal-looking mask, but we know what lies beneath, because we've seen it with our own eyes for the last 5 years and aren't going to forget any time soon.
In the face of that, the Tories are not showing even 10% of the ruthlessness they should to ensure that Labour never goes down that path again.
Democracy isn't just for people you think are sort of OK, you know.If you don't allow people with a quite different view to take part, you are narrowing the definition. In the same way, I think Farage is unscrupulous and deluded, but it's never occurred to me that he should be ruthlessly prevented from influencing British politics.
The effect of trying to ensure that people with unwelcome views don't win elections is to make them give up and try something else, as we're currently seeing with marginalised people in the US. It's not a route to pursue.0 -
For once, I agree with you.Nigel_Foremain said:
Indeed, so much the pity. They should rebrand themselves The Popular Front of Little England, aka The Brexit Party LiteBeibheirli_C said:@MikeSmithson said "Real Tories don’t ignore longstanding traditions"
Real Tories are not in charge.0 -
Generally speaking, it seems undesirable that the government of the day should be making these decisions at all. That's what we have an independent Appointments Commission for. A thankless task, I expect, but they're presumably paid for it.Wulfrun_Phil said:
In Bercow's case, it's by no means as simple as that. Firstly, there is the matter of his alleged bullying conduct towards several members of his staff, and the fact that it is the subject of an unresolved parliamentary investigation. Secondly, precedent and tradition meant nothing to Bercow in 2019 when he was quite content to throw the parliamentary rule book out of the window to suit his own political purposes. It is not a matter even that he disregarded neutrality in order to stand in the way of the government of the day (or "failed to please" as you put it), it is that he trashed precedent in order to do so.MikeSmithson said:
Johnson has now created a new rule - outgoing speakers only get elevated to a peerage if they have pleased the government of the day. That is a constitutional outrage.Fishing said:"In blocking a peerage to Bercow Johnson is also going against the advice of Bercow’s successor, Lindsay Hoyle. Back in December he urged Downing Street to follow “custom and practice”."
I have respect for Lindsay Hoyle, certainly after Bercow, but he's hardly uninterested in this row, is he?
"Real Tories don’t ignore longstanding traditions."
They do if they don't make sense in a particular case, as is arguably true here.
I personally think honours should be earned, rather than be given automatically for doing your job.
Anyway, if the HLAC decided not to recommend Bercow, at least until the allegations are settled, then wouldn't it be a breach of convention for Boris to nominate him?
Likewise, it is reasonable to refuse Karie Murphy's nomination whilst she is under active investigation for alleged anti-semitic offences. Bercow could hardly be granted a Lordship if Murphy is refused on similar grounds. So at least there is consistency in the PM's actions.
The refusal that I have difficulty with is that of Tom Watson. Whatever his errors in believing the paedophile accuser, he was not the only one to be taken in and his motives were good. He acted in good faith to try and shake the cage in the face of what he thought was an establishment cover up. He's being refused a peerage for no more than an error of judgement made in good faith, despite decades of long service to the Labour Party.0 -
Well said NickNickPalmer said:
You didn't agree with the past leader of the opposition so you feel total ruthlessness is needed now? I see.BluestBlue said:
By electing someone like Corbyn as leader, to my mind Labour were to the ones to declare total war on us. If he had somehow managed to win, that would have been the end of the British economy and society as most people know it.
Since then, they've managed to acquire a dull, normal-looking mask, but we know what lies beneath, because we've seen it with our own eyes for the last 5 years and aren't going to forget any time soon.
In the face of that, the Tories are not showing even 10% of the ruthlessness they should to ensure that Labour never goes down that path again.
Democracy isn't just for people you think are sort of OK, you know.If you don't allow people with a quite different view to take part, you are narrowing the definition. In the same way, I think Farage is unscrupulous and deluded, but it's never occurred to me that he should be ruthlessly prevented from influencing British politics.
The effect of trying to ensure that people with unwelcome views don't win elections is to make them give up and try something else, as we're currently seeing with marginalised people in the US. It's not a route to pursue.2 -
https://twitter.com/JimCognito2016/status/1267207348688429056AlastairMeeks said:I’m taking the view that government guidance is no longer following the science but what is politically convenient.
1 -
For once? I don't recall many of your posts I haven't agreed with? I wonder if you are confusing me with someone else?Beibheirli_C said:
For once, I agree with you.Nigel_Foremain said:
Indeed, so much the pity. They should rebrand themselves The Popular Front of Little England, aka The Brexit Party LiteBeibheirli_C said:@MikeSmithson said "Real Tories don’t ignore longstanding traditions"
Real Tories are not in charge.0 -
Si in fact your only interest in politics is to protect your privileged position from attack regardless of whether you deserve that position. You don’t really give a stuff about anything else or for that matter anybody else and unlike many from similar backgrounds see no responsibility to use the position to help the greater good.BluestBlue said:
In the words of Evelyn Waugh, I drink for the Collegenichomar said:
Out of interest, apart from posting on here, have you ever done anything for the party you so blindly support? Have you been out on the doorstep with your ‘Tory never wrong attitude’ or stood for election?BluestBlue said:
I don't know if anyone's told you this mind-blowing fact yet, but politics _is_ partisan...nichomar said:
Government to Honor him? I thought it was the queen on behalf of the country that bestow honors can you try and leave your petty party claptrap behind for a day and argue from a none partisan viewpoint.BluestBlue said:Bercow used every trick in the book to subvert and destroy the government and now he expects that government to honour him?
Er no, that's not how it works, I'm afraid. Here's to more such ruthlessness from No. 10!
1 -
https://twitter.com/KevinMKruse/status/1267255856623738880brokenwheel said:
Democrat-backed Antifa deliberately starting riots in Democrat cities in Democrat states, against Democrat-controlled PDs.Nigelb said:Heckuva job, Trumpie...
https://twitter.com/PhilipRucker/status/1267244996547284997
Yep, all Trump's fault.
The mental gymnastics are hilarious; I mean on the one hand the left attacks him for supposedly acting like a king, and then makes out he's a failure because he doesn't have absolute power over their mob. Which is it?0 -
One of my main bugbears is the gratuitous use of the term derangement syndrome.OnlyLivingBoy said:
Some Tory posters on this site have similar issues, believing that they have to fight dirty because Blair somehow cheated by winning in 1997, rather than merely running on a popular centrist platform against an exhausted and demoralised government. Tories don't have a divine right to run this country, the peaceful transfer of power between competing political parties with a well informed electorate helped by a fair and independent media should be something that we all aspire to, instead of some kind of politics as total war mindset in which the truth is the first casualty.AlastairMeeks said:
Actually, a large part of the problem is their residual paranoia from that time. All this rubbish about a deep state trying to thwart them comes from the belief that government was somehow rigged against them.HYUFD said:
They were out of power for 13 years from 1997 to 2010 but managed to surviveAlastairMeeks said:At some point the Conservatives are going to be out of power. I hope they can wrap up well for the cold.
Somebody such as Trump or Johnson does or says something that is objectively reprehensible - by which I mean most reasonable people would conclude this - and when one simply points this out back comes a response along the lines of "ah another case of XYZ derangement syndrome".
This is the exact equivalent of an abuser continuously claiming that the person they are abusing is mentally unstable and in the grip of delusion. It is gaslighting and as such is toxic to political discourse.
Hate it.1 -
Toby Young in the first list swings it for me.Scott_xP said:
https://twitter.com/JimCognito2016/status/1267207348688429056AlastairMeeks said:I’m taking the view that government guidance is no longer following the science but what is politically convenient.
3 -
Isn't the guidance continue WFH if you are able to do so?kle4 said:
That's just silly. I'm not a fan of remote operations but if they cannot go back to regular procedures they should keep the remote ones. Theres no point adopting yet new procedures.SouthamObserver said:British common sense ...
https://twitter.com/patrickkmaguire/status/1267347183013150720?s=210 -
I think this was always the case, and by "politically convenient" read "what the majority want even when it makes no sense". Populist government innit. Where is the sense in quarantining visitors from NZ?AlastairMeeks said:
I’m taking the view that government guidance is no longer following the science but what is politically convenient.Fishing said:
In a way, though, that was Boris's guidance, wasn't it? He said "Use your common sense", and I assume that's what you're doing.AlastairMeeks said:Who on here is still sticking by updated government guidance?
I’m at the stage where not only am I not, I haven’t the slightest idea or interest what it is. I’m taking my own view about what’s appropriate now.0 -
Mike - Tories are very capable of going against tradition when it conflicts with another.
A seat in the House of Lords has to be earned and justified. Bercow was a terrible Speaker with his arrogance and petty jealousies.
Yes he stood up for the House at times, and that was good, but he bent rules to do so and bullied both members and - unforgivably - staff.
He does not deserve a seat in the Lords regardless of any recent tradition.5 -
"Use your common sense" became Johnson's guidance in the wake of backing Cumming's breaking quarantine.Fishing said:
In a way, though, that was Boris's guidance, wasn't it? He said "Use your common sense", and I assume that's what you're doing.AlastairMeeks said:Who on here is still sticking by updated government guidance?
I’m at the stage where not only am I not, I haven’t the slightest idea or interest what it is. I’m taking my own view about what’s appropriate now.
Having rules and regulations that fit everybody's social interactions was never going to happen. Either they would be relative simple, and be inappropriate to the diversity and complexity of private life, or they would run to thousands of pages, and nobody would ever read them, much less follow them. Or they would be somewhere in between, and fall between both stools.
Having supported Cumming's actions it became impossible to say much else. The Cumming's affair has altered the guidance, Johnson had better cross his fingers and hope the infection rates haven't started rising in a week's time.
0 -
In which direction?Mexicanpete said:
Toby Young in the first list swings it for me.Scott_xP said:
https://twitter.com/JimCognito2016/status/1267207348688429056AlastairMeeks said:I’m taking the view that government guidance is no longer following the science but what is politically convenient.
2 -
"A seat in the House of Lords has to be earned"? Lol!Charles said:Mike - Tories are very capable of going against tradition when it conflicts with another.
A seat in the House of Lords has to be earned and justified. Bercow was a terrible Speaker with his arrogance and petty jealousies.
Yes he stood up for the House at times, and that was good, but he bent rules to do so and bullied both members and - unforgivably - staff.
He does not deserve a seat in the Lords regardless of any recent tradition.0 -
@Nigel_Foremain Yes I am confusing you with someone else. I think I need to go and put the coffee on.Nigel_Foremain said:
For once? I don't recall many of your posts I haven't agreed with? I wonder if you are confusing me with someone else?Beibheirli_C said:
For once, I agree with you.Nigel_Foremain said:
Indeed, so much the pity. They should rebrand themselves The Popular Front of Little England, aka The Brexit Party LiteBeibheirli_C said:@MikeSmithson said "Real Tories don’t ignore longstanding traditions"
Real Tories are not in charge.
My apologies for the confusion0 -
A wise man once said “if we were guided only by precedent, manifestly nothing in our procedures would ever change.”
Surely the govt is just following his advice?2 -
Indeed. It is why populist government always leads to bad government and eventually the electorate wake up and demand proper leadership. Thatcher was not afraid of doing what she believed right , even if unpopular, and the same in the main with Blair. What we have now is a PM who is a hopeless incompetent, and the only unpopular thing he will do is hang on to Cummings because he is so weak he doesn't know what he will do without him.Stocky said:
I think this was always the case, and by "politically convenient" read "what the majority want even when it makes no sense". Populist government innit. Where is the sense in quarantining visitors from NZ?AlastairMeeks said:
I’m taking the view that government guidance is no longer following the science but what is politically convenient.Fishing said:
In a way, though, that was Boris's guidance, wasn't it? He said "Use your common sense", and I assume that's what you're doing.AlastairMeeks said:Who on here is still sticking by updated government guidance?
I’m at the stage where not only am I not, I haven’t the slightest idea or interest what it is. I’m taking my own view about what’s appropriate now.0 -
As I recall, you were in favour of the government ordering the arrest of an opposition MP. On the grounds that he had obtained leaked government documents.NickPalmer said:
You didn't agree with the past leader of the opposition so you feel total ruthlessness is needed now? I see.BluestBlue said:
By electing someone like Corbyn as leader, to my mind Labour were to the ones to declare total war on us. If he had somehow managed to win, that would have been the end of the British economy and society as most people know it.
Since then, they've managed to acquire a dull, normal-looking mask, but we know what lies beneath, because we've seen it with our own eyes for the last 5 years and aren't going to forget any time soon.
In the face of that, the Tories are not showing even 10% of the ruthlessness they should to ensure that Labour never goes down that path again.
Democracy isn't just for people you think are sort of OK, you know.If you don't allow people with a quite different view to take part, you are narrowing the definition. In the same way, I think Farage is unscrupulous and deluded, but it's never occurred to me that he should be ruthlessly prevented from influencing British politics.
The effect of trying to ensure that people with unwelcome views don't win elections is to make them give up and try something else, as we're currently seeing with marginalised people in the US. It's not a route to pursue.
Which event, interestingly, led to the downfall of the Speaker at the time.1 -
I'm afraid I feel the same. I suspect it applies to millions. There is something silly about the whole thing now. They mouth the words but the words carry no weight or meaning. They know it. We know it. They know that we know it.AlastairMeeks said:Who on here is still sticking by updated government guidance?
I’m at the stage where not only am I not, I haven’t the slightest idea or interest what it is. I’m taking my own view about what’s appropriate now.
And forgetting about the practical impact - which is potentially grim - it is very sad. Uncomfortable too. For them and also for us. When you go and watch somebody speak, or perform, you naturally root for them. Nobody wants them to lose the room.0 -
-
I would be surprised if arrogant, rule-benders consumed by petty jealousies have not previously been appointed to the House of Lords. Maybe they were donors to the Conservative party, though, so it was all OK.Charles said:Mike - Tories are very capable of going against tradition when it conflicts with another.
A seat in the House of Lords has to be earned and justified. Bercow was a terrible Speaker with his arrogance and petty jealousies.
Yes he stood up for the House at times, and that was good, but he bent rules to do so and bullied both members and - unforgivably - staff.
He does not deserve a seat in the Lords regardless of any recent tradition.
0 -
Not according to most polls.Stocky said:
I think this was always the case, and by "politically convenient" read "what the majority want even when it makes no sense". Populist government innit. Where is the sense in quarantining visitors from NZ?AlastairMeeks said:
I’m taking the view that government guidance is no longer following the science but what is politically convenient.Fishing said:
In a way, though, that was Boris's guidance, wasn't it? He said "Use your common sense", and I assume that's what you're doing.AlastairMeeks said:Who on here is still sticking by updated government guidance?
I’m at the stage where not only am I not, I haven’t the slightest idea or interest what it is. I’m taking my own view about what’s appropriate now.-1 -
Morris_Dancer said:
Mr. Observer, I imagine it's to reduce accountability and questioning.
I think that is probably the explanation. On every occasion we have witnessed Johnson being questioned either at PMQs or press conferences he is waffly, unable to think on his feet and clearly not on top of the detail. We are going to see lots of innovative ways of him avoiding scrutiny over the next few years.0 -
Yes, yes it is.dixiedean said:
Isn't the guidance continue WFH if you are able to do so?kle4 said:
That's just silly. I'm not a fan of remote operations but if they cannot go back to regular procedures they should keep the remote ones. Theres no point adopting yet new procedures.SouthamObserver said:British common sense ...
https://twitter.com/patrickkmaguire/status/1267347183013150720?s=21
& the hybrid system was working well.0 -
-
Such and apples and orange situation. This is about policing in a Democrat city, in a Democrat state. It has nothing to do with Trump as opposed to the way foreign policy is tied to the President, hence why Nixon intervened.Alistair said:
https://twitter.com/KevinMKruse/status/1267255856623738880brokenwheel said:
Democrat-backed Antifa deliberately starting riots in Democrat cities in Democrat states, against Democrat-controlled PDs.Nigelb said:Heckuva job, Trumpie...
https://twitter.com/PhilipRucker/status/1267244996547284997
Yep, all Trump's fault.
The mental gymnastics are hilarious; I mean on the one hand the left attacks him for supposedly acting like a king, and then makes out he's a failure because he doesn't have absolute power over their mob. Which is it?
So if Trump went to talk with some peaceful protesters (for what reason? he doesn't disagree with them) Antifa would stop looting Louis Vuitton? This is ridiculous.
Still not explaining how this has anything to do with Trump.
0 -
-
Thank goodness.Beibheirli_C said:@MikeSmithson said "Real Tories don’t ignore longstanding traditions"
Real Tories are not in charge.
“If we only went by precedent, manifestly nothing would ever change."1 -
If you have any historical perspective, as I am sure you do, you will know that there have been far worse people who have been given peerages than John Bercow, many of them have descendants that now cling on to said peerages by the hereditary principle. Mike is correct, this is petty and un-Conservative. It is a Trumpian style revenge and nothing less. It is pathetic.Charles said:Mike - Tories are very capable of going against tradition when it conflicts with another.
A seat in the House of Lords has to be earned and justified. Bercow was a terrible Speaker with his arrogance and petty jealousies.
Yes he stood up for the House at times, and that was good, but he bent rules to do so and bullied both members and - unforgivably - staff.
He does not deserve a seat in the Lords regardless of any recent tradition.0 -
Your own party is doing it by blocking Corbyn....Nigel_Foremain said:
Well said NickNickPalmer said:
You didn't agree with the past leader of the opposition so you feel total ruthlessness is needed now? I see.BluestBlue said:
By electing someone like Corbyn as leader, to my mind Labour were to the ones to declare total war on us. If he had somehow managed to win, that would have been the end of the British economy and society as most people know it.
Since then, they've managed to acquire a dull, normal-looking mask, but we know what lies beneath, because we've seen it with our own eyes for the last 5 years and aren't going to forget any time soon.
In the face of that, the Tories are not showing even 10% of the ruthlessness they should to ensure that Labour never goes down that path again.
Democracy isn't just for people you think are sort of OK, you know.If you don't allow people with a quite different view to take part, you are narrowing the definition. In the same way, I think Farage is unscrupulous and deluded, but it's never occurred to me that he should be ruthlessly prevented from influencing British politics.
The effect of trying to ensure that people with unwelcome views don't win elections is to make them give up and try something else, as we're currently seeing with marginalised people in the US. It's not a route to pursue.0 -
June 1st so Cummings bets are paying out today at least 1
-
The only way Jeremy Corbyn could ever have taken power is if the British people had voted for him. The idea you should be able to second guess voters and deny them choices they might want to make is fundamentally undemocratic. To be fair, though, your views do seem to be shared by many members of the current government.BluestBlue said:
By electing someone like Corbyn as leader, to my mind Labour were to the ones to declare total war on us. If he had somehow managed to win, that would have been the end of the British economy and society as most people know it.OnlyLivingBoy said:
Some Tory posters on this site have similar issues, believing that they have to fight dirty because Blair somehow cheated by winning in 1997, rather than merely running on a popular centrist platform against an exhausted and demoralised government. Tories don't have a divine right to run this country, the peaceful transfer of power between competing political parties with a well informed electorate helped by a fair and independent media should be something that we all aspire to, instead of some kind of politics as total war mindset in which the truth is the first casualty.AlastairMeeks said:
Actually, a large part of the problem is their residual paranoia from that time. All this rubbish about a deep state trying to thwart them comes from the belief that government was somehow rigged against them.HYUFD said:
They were out of power for 13 years from 1997 to 2010 but managed to surviveAlastairMeeks said:At some point the Conservatives are going to be out of power. I hope they can wrap up well for the cold.
Since then, they've managed to acquire a dull, normal-looking mask, but we know what lies beneath, because we've seen it with our own eyes for the last 5 years and aren't going to forget any time soon.
In the face of that, the Tories are not showing even 10% of the ruthlessness they should to ensure that Labour never goes down that path again.
0 -
And when the wheel inevitably turns, those who are cheering now will be wailing the loudestNigel_Foremain said:Mike is correct, this is petty and un-Conservative. It is a Trumpian style revenge and nothing less. It is pathetic.
2 -
My whole £2 that Shadsy let me put on...!Pulpstar said:June 1st so Cummings bets are paying out today at least
0 -
Have you got your affairs in order?Pulpstar said:
I'm heading to a garden party at some point. There'll probably be more than 6 people there. Two of the attendees will be immune mind.AlastairMeeks said:
I’m taking the view that government guidance is no longer following the science but what is politically convenient.Fishing said:
In a way, though, that was Boris's guidance, wasn't it? He said "Use your common sense", and I assume that's what you're doing.AlastairMeeks said:Who on here is still sticking by updated government guidance?
I’m at the stage where not only am I not, I haven’t the slightest idea or interest what it is. I’m taking my own view about what’s appropriate now.0 -
Another paper on T Cell responses to the viral proteins:
Targets of T Cell Responses to SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus in Humans with COVID-19 Disease and Unexposed Individuals
https://www.cell.com/cell/pdf/S0092-8674(20)30610-3.pdf
Understanding adaptive immunity to SARS-CoV-2 is important for vaccine development, interpreting coro- navirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pathogenesis, and calibration of pandemic control measures. Using HLA class I and II predicted peptide ‘‘megapools,’’ circulating SARS-CoV-2-specific CD8+ and CD4+ T cells were identified in $70% and 100% of COVID-19 convalescent patients, respectively. CD4+ T cell responses to spike, the main target of most vaccine efforts, were robust and correlated with the magnitude of the anti- SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgA titers. The M, spike, and N proteins each accounted for 11%–27% of the total CD4+ response, with additional responses commonly targeting nsp3, nsp4, ORF3a, and ORF8, among others. For CD8+ T cells, spike and M were recognized, with at least eight SARS-CoV-2 ORFs targeted. Importantly, we detected SARS-CoV-2-reactive CD4+ T cells in $40%–60% of unexposed individuals, suggesting cross- reactive T cell recognition between circulating ‘‘common cold’’ coronaviruses and SARS-CoV-2.3 -
I have never heard of derangement syndrome and I am not entirely sure I know what it means. Presumably that the person making the criticism in your example has a distorted view of the world and that is why they have said what they said?kinabalu said:
One of my main bugbears is the gratuitous use of the term derangement syndrome.OnlyLivingBoy said:
Some Tory posters on this site have similar issues, believing that they have to fight dirty because Blair somehow cheated by winning in 1997, rather than merely running on a popular centrist platform against an exhausted and demoralised government. Tories don't have a divine right to run this country, the peaceful transfer of power between competing political parties with a well informed electorate helped by a fair and independent media should be something that we all aspire to, instead of some kind of politics as total war mindset in which the truth is the first casualty.AlastairMeeks said:
Actually, a large part of the problem is their residual paranoia from that time. All this rubbish about a deep state trying to thwart them comes from the belief that government was somehow rigged against them.HYUFD said:
They were out of power for 13 years from 1997 to 2010 but managed to surviveAlastairMeeks said:At some point the Conservatives are going to be out of power. I hope they can wrap up well for the cold.
Somebody such as Trump or Johnson does or says something that is objectively reprehensible - by which I mean most reasonable people would conclude this - and when one simply points this out back comes a response along the lines of "ah another case of XYZ derangement syndrome".
This is the exact equivalent of an abuser continuously claiming that the person they are abusing is mentally unstable and in the grip of delusion. It is gaslighting and as such is toxic to political discourse.
Hate it.
To be fair I only got my head around "gaslighting" (and still find the etymology quite confusing) fairly recently but I don't think its common this side of the pond.0 -
A simple question and probably shows my ignorance, why does the R number appear to go up even when the number of new cases reduces. I’ve watched the number of new cases reduce in Valencia drop dramatically with 0 yesterday but the R number creeps upwards to 1?0
-
The lunatic fringe that are clearly so aligned with your divisive world view (a very small world called Little England) will have their day. That day will soon come to an end when people wake up and realise. The Clown's days, much like his populist ally in the US, are very much numbered.Philip_Thompson said:
Thank goodness.Beibheirli_C said:@MikeSmithson said "Real Tories don’t ignore longstanding traditions"
Real Tories are not in charge.
“If we only went by precedent, manifestly nothing would ever change."0 -
Yep - that's what it looks like. We will see a lot more of this kind of thing over the coming months and years as they do anything to ensure the government can avoid accountability.Alistair said:
It stops scrutiny of the government. Hope that helps.SouthamObserver said:A much bigger issue than Bercow is that from today a large number of voters no longer have representation in Parliament, thanks to the government’s decision to end remote voting and questioning. I have yet to see any sensible reason why this is happening. Can anyone help?
0 -
Did you mean my own party or Nick's?squareroot2 said:
Your own party is doing it by blocking Corbyn....Nigel_Foremain said:
Well said NickNickPalmer said:
You didn't agree with the past leader of the opposition so you feel total ruthlessness is needed now? I see.BluestBlue said:
By electing someone like Corbyn as leader, to my mind Labour were to the ones to declare total war on us. If he had somehow managed to win, that would have been the end of the British economy and society as most people know it.
Since then, they've managed to acquire a dull, normal-looking mask, but we know what lies beneath, because we've seen it with our own eyes for the last 5 years and aren't going to forget any time soon.
In the face of that, the Tories are not showing even 10% of the ruthlessness they should to ensure that Labour never goes down that path again.
Democracy isn't just for people you think are sort of OK, you know.If you don't allow people with a quite different view to take part, you are narrowing the definition. In the same way, I think Farage is unscrupulous and deluded, but it's never occurred to me that he should be ruthlessly prevented from influencing British politics.
The effect of trying to ensure that people with unwelcome views don't win elections is to make them give up and try something else, as we're currently seeing with marginalised people in the US. It's not a route to pursue.0 -
Maybe it's because there are only a limited number of people susceptible to having a serious reaction to the virus and most of those have already had it. It would be a good thing if that is the case because it would mean that we won't have any serious further waves/peaks.nichomar said:A simple question and probably shows my ignorance, why does the R number appear to go up even when the number of new cases reduces. I’ve watched the number of new cases reduce in Valencia drop dramatically with 0 yesterday but the R number creeps upwards to 1?
0 -
A bit like the remark Mahatma Ghandi is alleged to have made about Western civilisation.Mexicanpete said:
"A seat in the House of Lords has to be earned"? Lol!Charles said:Mike - Tories are very capable of going against tradition when it conflicts with another.
A seat in the House of Lords has to be earned and justified. Bercow was a terrible Speaker with his arrogance and petty jealousies.
Yes he stood up for the House at times, and that was good, but he bent rules to do so and bullied both members and - unforgivably - staff.
He does not deserve a seat in the Lords regardless of any recent tradition.0 -
Header (which I had to click through to from Vanilla) absolutely spot on.
Speakers, in the modern era, get peerages. Bercow did a huge amount for parliamentary democracy, as I am probably not the first to point out, a concept that the people denying him the peerage supposedly promote.
Small minded tossers, frankly.0 -
That is a bit silly because the queue for Nemesis at Alton Towers usually moves pretty quickly whenever I've been there.SouthamObserver said:British common sense ...
https://twitter.com/patrickkmaguire/status/1267347183013150720?s=210 -
You are not an offender, David.DavidL said:
I have never heard of derangement syndrome and I am not entirely sure I know what it means. Presumably that the person making the criticism in your example has a distorted view of the world and that is why they have said what they said?kinabalu said:
One of my main bugbears is the gratuitous use of the term derangement syndrome.OnlyLivingBoy said:
Some Tory posters on this site have similar issues, believing that they have to fight dirty because Blair somehow cheated by winning in 1997, rather than merely running on a popular centrist platform against an exhausted and demoralised government. Tories don't have a divine right to run this country, the peaceful transfer of power between competing political parties with a well informed electorate helped by a fair and independent media should be something that we all aspire to, instead of some kind of politics as total war mindset in which the truth is the first casualty.AlastairMeeks said:
Actually, a large part of the problem is their residual paranoia from that time. All this rubbish about a deep state trying to thwart them comes from the belief that government was somehow rigged against them.HYUFD said:
They were out of power for 13 years from 1997 to 2010 but managed to surviveAlastairMeeks said:At some point the Conservatives are going to be out of power. I hope they can wrap up well for the cold.
Somebody such as Trump or Johnson does or says something that is objectively reprehensible - by which I mean most reasonable people would conclude this - and when one simply points this out back comes a response along the lines of "ah another case of XYZ derangement syndrome".
This is the exact equivalent of an abuser continuously claiming that the person they are abusing is mentally unstable and in the grip of delusion. It is gaslighting and as such is toxic to political discourse.
Hate it.
To be fair I only got my head around "gaslighting" (and still find the etymology quite confusing) fairly recently but I don't think its common this side of the pond.
OK, take "Trump Derangement Syndrome".
It (supposedly) is a condition whereby a "lib" is SO enraged by Donald Trump being POTUS - just that very fact - that he or she loses all ability to discuss anything to do with Trump rationally. It is used to rebut or downplay criticism of Trump.
There - you can use it now and get into my Bad Books. 0 -
I would say there is considerable evidence that Derangement Syndrome does exist.DavidL said:
I have never heard of derangement syndrome and I am not entirely sure I know what it means. Presumably that the person making the criticism in your example has a distorted view of the world and that is why they have said what they said?kinabalu said:
One of my main bugbears is the gratuitous use of the term derangement syndrome.OnlyLivingBoy said:
Some Tory posters on this site have similar issues, believing that they have to fight dirty because Blair somehow cheated by winning in 1997, rather than merely running on a popular centrist platform against an exhausted and demoralised government. Tories don't have a divine right to run this country, the peaceful transfer of power between competing political parties with a well informed electorate helped by a fair and independent media should be something that we all aspire to, instead of some kind of politics as total war mindset in which the truth is the first casualty.AlastairMeeks said:
Actually, a large part of the problem is their residual paranoia from that time. All this rubbish about a deep state trying to thwart them comes from the belief that government was somehow rigged against them.HYUFD said:
They were out of power for 13 years from 1997 to 2010 but managed to surviveAlastairMeeks said:At some point the Conservatives are going to be out of power. I hope they can wrap up well for the cold.
Somebody such as Trump or Johnson does or says something that is objectively reprehensible - by which I mean most reasonable people would conclude this - and when one simply points this out back comes a response along the lines of "ah another case of XYZ derangement syndrome".
This is the exact equivalent of an abuser continuously claiming that the person they are abusing is mentally unstable and in the grip of delusion. It is gaslighting and as such is toxic to political discourse.
Hate it.
To be fair I only got my head around "gaslighting" (and still find the etymology quite confusing) fairly recently but I don't think its common this side of the pond.
For a definite example - the cult-like hatred for the Clintons on the American Right. Complete with an armada of utterly insane conspiracy theories.
The problem that it causes in political discourse, is the irregular verb problem -
I am objective and right in my judgements
You are partisan
He/She is deranged and evil
So it just shortens the journey to the endpoint of political debate -
"Your politician smells"
"No, your politician smells twice as bad"
etc. etc.0 -
The appeal to tradition here is irrelevant. It is utterly unprecedented that the likes of Leakey and Lisvane would openly accuse the Speaker of bullying, so nothing that used to happen is a guide to what should happen now. This doesn't make the top twenty of reasons to dislike Johnson.0
-
'The idea you should be able to second guess voters and deny them choices they might want to make is fundamentally undemocratic.'SouthamObserver said:
The only way Jeremy Corbyn could ever have taken power is if the British people had voted for him. The idea you should be able to second guess voters and deny them choices they might want to make is fundamentally undemocratic. To be fair, though, your views do seem to be shared by many members of the current government.BluestBlue said:
By electing someone like Corbyn as leader, to my mind Labour were to the ones to declare total war on us. If he had somehow managed to win, that would have been the end of the British economy and society as most people know it.OnlyLivingBoy said:
Some Tory posters on this site have similar issues, believing that they have to fight dirty because Blair somehow cheated by winning in 1997, rather than merely running on a popular centrist platform against an exhausted and demoralised government. Tories don't have a divine right to run this country, the peaceful transfer of power between competing political parties with a well informed electorate helped by a fair and independent media should be something that we all aspire to, instead of some kind of politics as total war mindset in which the truth is the first casualty.AlastairMeeks said:
Actually, a large part of the problem is their residual paranoia from that time. All this rubbish about a deep state trying to thwart them comes from the belief that government was somehow rigged against them.HYUFD said:
They were out of power for 13 years from 1997 to 2010 but managed to surviveAlastairMeeks said:At some point the Conservatives are going to be out of power. I hope they can wrap up well for the cold.
Since then, they've managed to acquire a dull, normal-looking mask, but we know what lies beneath, because we've seen it with our own eyes for the last 5 years and aren't going to forget any time soon.
In the face of that, the Tories are not showing even 10% of the ruthlessness they should to ensure that Labour never goes down that path again.
You mean the way Labour, the Lib Dems, the SNP etc etc spent years trying to subvert the result of the EU Referendum, thus second-guessing voters and denying them choices they might want to make in a fundamentally undemocratic manner?
The simple fact is that given a choice between the sanctity of democracy and their own interests, every side in politics will favour their own interests every single time.
Given that reality, the only question is - what are you prepared to do to be on the side that gets to make the decisions?0 -
Did the close the track and trace then? I thought it launched last week? Did I miss something?Scott_xP said:0 -
-
It was announced last week.turbotubbs said:Did the close the track and trace then? I thought it launched last week? Did I miss something?
It doesn't work.0 -
And yet you still failed to dislodge him...Scott_xP said:1 -
On topic, I'm afraid I don't agree.
The bullying allegations should be sufficient to merit at least a pause in the process. If they're found to be groundless or exaggerated then there's no reason why a peerage couldn't be awarded later - and I do think that in general, it's a good thing for former Speakers to be appointed to the Lords.
However, that should be a general rule and not a guarantee. Having overseen the expenses scandal and having almost been forced out in consequence of it, Michael Martin should not have received a peerage either. To deny two Speakers in a row would be unfortunate but these things have to be considered case-by-case.4 -
indeed!TOPPING said:Header (which I had to click through to from Vanilla) absolutely spot on.
Speakers, in the modern era, get peerages. Bercow did a huge amount for parliamentary democracy, as I am probably not the first to point out, a concept that the people denying him the peerage supposedly promote.
Small minded tossers, frankly.0 -
Comment based on what evidence please? Just your statement?Scott_xP said:
It was announced last week.turbotubbs said:Did the close the track and trace then? I thought it launched last week? Did I miss something?
It doesn't work.1 -
Track and trace is running now. The app is not currently part of it.turbotubbs said:
Did the close the track and trace then? I thought it launched last week? Did I miss something?Scott_xP said:
0 -
Read the original messageturbotubbs said:Comment based on what evidence please? Just your statement?
That is the considered scientific assessment0 -
1 person having the disease and passing to another person and that person passing to another person means an "R" of 1, whereas 100 people passing to 70 and those 70 passing to 49 means an "R" of 0.7.nichomar said:A simple question and probably shows my ignorance, why does the R number appear to go up even when the number of new cases reduces. I’ve watched the number of new cases reduce in Valencia drop dramatically with 0 yesterday but the R number creeps upwards to 1?
After 3 periods of transmission you have 3 people infected in the first scenario and 219 total in the second but the R for the second scenario is lower.
This is why you want to push R down so much more early.0 -
Why isn't Starmer opposing this? Why is track and trace being run centrally rather than by local authorities who know their communities?Scott_xP said:
0 -
I think I'll pass (I am sure I annoy you quite enough already :-))kinabalu said:
You are not an offender, David.DavidL said:
I have never heard of derangement syndrome and I am not entirely sure I know what it means. Presumably that the person making the criticism in your example has a distorted view of the world and that is why they have said what they said?kinabalu said:
One of my main bugbears is the gratuitous use of the term derangement syndrome.OnlyLivingBoy said:
Some Tory posters on this site have similar issues, believing that they have to fight dirty because Blair somehow cheated by winning in 1997, rather than merely running on a popular centrist platform against an exhausted and demoralised government. Tories don't have a divine right to run this country, the peaceful transfer of power between competing political parties with a well informed electorate helped by a fair and independent media should be something that we all aspire to, instead of some kind of politics as total war mindset in which the truth is the first casualty.AlastairMeeks said:
Actually, a large part of the problem is their residual paranoia from that time. All this rubbish about a deep state trying to thwart them comes from the belief that government was somehow rigged against them.HYUFD said:
They were out of power for 13 years from 1997 to 2010 but managed to surviveAlastairMeeks said:At some point the Conservatives are going to be out of power. I hope they can wrap up well for the cold.
Somebody such as Trump or Johnson does or says something that is objectively reprehensible - by which I mean most reasonable people would conclude this - and when one simply points this out back comes a response along the lines of "ah another case of XYZ derangement syndrome".
This is the exact equivalent of an abuser continuously claiming that the person they are abusing is mentally unstable and in the grip of delusion. It is gaslighting and as such is toxic to political discourse.
Hate it.
To be fair I only got my head around "gaslighting" (and still find the etymology quite confusing) fairly recently but I don't think its common this side of the pond.
OK, take "Trump Derangement Syndrome".
It (supposedly) is a condition whereby a "lib" is SO enraged by Donald Trump being POTUS - just that very fact - that he or she loses all ability to discuss anything to do with Trump rationally. It is used to rebut or downplay criticism of Trump.
There - you can use it now and get into my Bad Books.1 -
I have long thought that Richard Nixon is the biggest winner from the Trump presidency.Alistair said:
https://twitter.com/KevinMKruse/status/1267255856623738880brokenwheel said:
Democrat-backed Antifa deliberately starting riots in Democrat cities in Democrat states, against Democrat-controlled PDs.Nigelb said:Heckuva job, Trumpie...
https://twitter.com/PhilipRucker/status/1267244996547284997
Yep, all Trump's fault.
The mental gymnastics are hilarious; I mean on the one hand the left attacks him for supposedly acting like a king, and then makes out he's a failure because he doesn't have absolute power over their mob. Which is it?0 -
Yes, it really cut through with ordinarilly non-political people.Scott_xP said:
Something Boris may come to regret.1 -
No - that is a considered scientific assessment.Scott_xP said:
Read the original messageturbotubbs said:Comment based on what evidence please? Just your statement?
That is the considered scientific assessment
0 -
Governments govern for the country not just ‘their side’ yes the election gives them the right to implement certain policies but their overall obligation is to govern in the national interest.BluestBlue said:
'The idea you should be able to second guess voters and deny them choices they might want to make is fundamentally undemocratic.'SouthamObserver said:
The only way Jeremy Corbyn could ever have taken power is if the British people had voted for him. The idea you should be able to second guess voters and deny them choices they might want to make is fundamentally undemocratic. To be fair, though, your views do seem to be shared by many members of the current government.BluestBlue said:
By electing someone like Corbyn as leader, to my mind Labour were to the ones to declare total war on us. If he had somehow managed to win, that would have been the end of the British economy and society as most people know it.OnlyLivingBoy said:
Some Tory posters on this site have similar issues, believing that they have to fight dirty because Blair somehow cheated by winning in 1997, rather than merely running on a popular centrist platform against an exhausted and demoralised government. Tories don't have a divine right to run this country, the peaceful transfer of power between competing political parties with a well informed electorate helped by a fair and independent media should be something that we all aspire to, instead of some kind of politics as total war mindset in which the truth is the first casualty.AlastairMeeks said:
Actually, a large part of the problem is their residual paranoia from that time. All this rubbish about a deep state trying to thwart them comes from the belief that government was somehow rigged against them.HYUFD said:
They were out of power for 13 years from 1997 to 2010 but managed to surviveAlastairMeeks said:At some point the Conservatives are going to be out of power. I hope they can wrap up well for the cold.
Since then, they've managed to acquire a dull, normal-looking mask, but we know what lies beneath, because we've seen it with our own eyes for the last 5 years and aren't going to forget any time soon.
In the face of that, the Tories are not showing even 10% of the ruthlessness they should to ensure that Labour never goes down that path again.
You mean the way Labour, the Lib Dems, the SNP etc etc spent years trying to subvert the result of the EU Referendum, thus second-guessing voters and denying them choices they might want to make in a fundamentally undemocratic manner?
The simple fact is that given a choice between the sanctity of democracy and their own interests, every side in politics will favour their own interests every single time.
Given that reality, the only question is - what are you prepared to do to be on the side that gets to make the decisions?1 -
If it's divisive to take bullying allegations seriously I'm content to be divisive.Nigel_Foremain said:
The lunatic fringe that are clearly so aligned with your divisive world view (a very small world called Little England) will have their day. That day will soon come to an end when people wake up and realise. The Clown's days, much like his populist ally in the US, are very much numbered.Philip_Thompson said:
Thank goodness.Beibheirli_C said:@MikeSmithson said "Real Tories don’t ignore longstanding traditions"
Real Tories are not in charge.
“If we only went by precedent, manifestly nothing would ever change."1 -
France, Germany, Denmark, Austria, Australia and New Zealand have already eased lockdownScott_xP said:
https://twitter.com/JimCognito2016/status/1267207348688429056AlastairMeeks said:I’m taking the view that government guidance is no longer following the science but what is politically convenient.
1 -
Because Johnson is a weak leader, and weak leaders are often too dependent on one individual. You really would have to be "Bluest blue" (not really a compliment) to not notice that. Either that or completely myopic. You are the very reflection of a Corbynista. Proud to be blinkered eh?! lolBluestBlue said:
And yet you still failed to dislodge him...Scott_xP said:0 -
LOL at the basketball writer in the US, who was Tweeting his support for the rioters - until they turned up to his own gated community...
https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/12671271923303465002 -
So? What’s that got to do with the UK.HYUFD said:
France, Germany, Denmark, Austria, Australia and New Zealand have already eased lockdownScott_xP said:
https://twitter.com/JimCognito2016/status/1267207348688429056AlastairMeeks said:I’m taking the view that government guidance is no longer following the science but what is politically convenient.
0 -
It is remarkable that a Leaver government that put so much emphasis on "Taking Back Control" should simultaneously be so little in control and so much out of control.1
-
OK, post a different considered scientific assessment that says track and trace is workingturbotubbs said:No - that is a considered scientific assessment.
0 -
Does Andy Maciver read PB?StuartDickson said:Coronavirus: Dominic Cummings uproar threatens Union, veteran Tories say
(£)
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/coronavirus-dominic-cummings-uproar-threatens-union-veteran-tories-say-pbb85pfk8
“It is ridiculous to think Jackson Carlaw will be first minister, and it was never a possibility with Ruth Davidson either even though we went through the period where people thought it might be possible, which was just self-indulgent rubbish from people that hadn’t analysed the mood properly.”0 -
Interesting number over the weekend from the NI T&T operation ... they were currently tracking 30 cases a day.Scott_xP said:
It was announced last week.turbotubbs said:Did the close the track and trace then? I thought it launched last week? Did I miss something?
It doesn't work.0 -
There's so much more, all his tweets are gold dust.Sandpit said:LOL at the basketball writer in the US, who was Tweeting his support for the rioters - until they turned up to his own gated community...
https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/12671271923303465000 -
Lol, and I though Betfair Sportsbook restricting me to thirty quid was harsh.TheWhiteRabbit said:
My whole £2 that Shadsy let me put on...!Pulpstar said:June 1st so Cummings bets are paying out today at least
0 -
Because, through word and deed, he has created a climate in which structural racism flourishes.brokenwheel said:
Still not explaining how this has anything to do with Trump.4 -
R is not related to the number of cases. (As Mark Drakeford also seems not to understand). If you don't change your behaviour for three weeks the R won't change, but if it is less than 1, the number of cases will. You could go from R = 0.5 to R = 0.9 by allowing some things to open, but the cases will still fall overall (as people recover). This is the tightrope that all countries coming out of lockdown and indeed Sweden, have to walk. In Sweden's case their informal lockdown (self behaviour, not state closure) seems to have left them with an R much closer to 1, and thus only a very slow decline in cases (and deaths) than places with a lockdown.Pulpstar said:
1 person having the disease and passing to another person and that person passing to another person means an "R" of 1, whereas 100 people passing to 70 and those 70 passing to 49 means an "R" of 0.7.nichomar said:A simple question and probably shows my ignorance, why does the R number appear to go up even when the number of new cases reduces. I’ve watched the number of new cases reduce in Valencia drop dramatically with 0 yesterday but the R number creeps upwards to 1?
After 3 periods of transmission you have 3 people infected in the first scenario and 219 total in the second but the R for the second scenario is lower.
This is why you want to push R down so much more early.0 -
Ponder your language with your interlocutors over the time you have been on PB. Vigorous, passionate, incisive. But also, perhaps, opinionated, aggressive, bullying?Philip_Thompson said:
If it's divisive to take bullying allegations seriously I'm content to be divisive.Nigel_Foremain said:
The lunatic fringe that are clearly so aligned with your divisive world view (a very small world called Little England) will have their day. That day will soon come to an end when people wake up and realise. The Clown's days, much like his populist ally in the US, are very much numbered.Philip_Thompson said:
Thank goodness.Beibheirli_C said:@MikeSmithson said "Real Tories don’t ignore longstanding traditions"
Real Tories are not in charge.
“If we only went by precedent, manifestly nothing would ever change."
I have absolutely no idea of the charges' validity against Bercow. Just that bullying allegations are just that, allegations.0 -
Whilst "Only Nixon could go to China" it would seem that our parallel is that only Cummings would go to Durham...OnlyLivingBoy said:I have long thought that Richard Nixon is the biggest winner from the Trump presidency.
2 -
Oh, but I didn't see you keen to see the back of Cummings? Populist Brexity bullies are ok in Little England then? Why am I surprised.Philip_Thompson said:
If it's divisive to take bullying allegations seriously I'm content to be divisive.Nigel_Foremain said:
The lunatic fringe that are clearly so aligned with your divisive world view (a very small world called Little England) will have their day. That day will soon come to an end when people wake up and realise. The Clown's days, much like his populist ally in the US, are very much numbered.Philip_Thompson said:
Thank goodness.Beibheirli_C said:@MikeSmithson said "Real Tories don’t ignore longstanding traditions"
Real Tories are not in charge.
“If we only went by precedent, manifestly nothing would ever change."1 -
Like many terms it is useful if used with precision - or at least an attempt at precision - but becomes sterile and offensive when bandied about mindlessly.Malmesbury said:
I would say there is considerable evidence that Derangement Syndrome does exist.DavidL said:
I have never heard of derangement syndrome and I am not entirely sure I know what it means. Presumably that the person making the criticism in your example has a distorted view of the world and that is why they have said what they said?kinabalu said:
One of my main bugbears is the gratuitous use of the term derangement syndrome.OnlyLivingBoy said:
Some Tory posters on this site have similar issues, believing that they have to fight dirty because Blair somehow cheated by winning in 1997, rather than merely running on a popular centrist platform against an exhausted and demoralised government. Tories don't have a divine right to run this country, the peaceful transfer of power between competing political parties with a well informed electorate helped by a fair and independent media should be something that we all aspire to, instead of some kind of politics as total war mindset in which the truth is the first casualty.AlastairMeeks said:
Actually, a large part of the problem is their residual paranoia from that time. All this rubbish about a deep state trying to thwart them comes from the belief that government was somehow rigged against them.HYUFD said:
They were out of power for 13 years from 1997 to 2010 but managed to surviveAlastairMeeks said:At some point the Conservatives are going to be out of power. I hope they can wrap up well for the cold.
Somebody such as Trump or Johnson does or says something that is objectively reprehensible - by which I mean most reasonable people would conclude this - and when one simply points this out back comes a response along the lines of "ah another case of XYZ derangement syndrome".
This is the exact equivalent of an abuser continuously claiming that the person they are abusing is mentally unstable and in the grip of delusion. It is gaslighting and as such is toxic to political discourse.
Hate it.
To be fair I only got my head around "gaslighting" (and still find the etymology quite confusing) fairly recently but I don't think its common this side of the pond.
For a definite example - the cult-like hatred for the Clintons on the American Right. Complete with an armada of utterly insane conspiracy theories.
The problem that it causes in political discourse, is the irregular verb problem -
I am objective and right in my judgements
You are partisan
He/She is deranged and evil
So it just shortens the journey to the endpoint of political debate -
"Your politician smells"
"No, your politician smells twice as bad"
etc. etc.
And yes, I know, there are plenty of other examples - "racist" for one - and yes, I know there is the "irregular verb problem" you mention. Cognitive bias. Partisanship. The impossibility of objectivity in human beings. Bla bla.
So all you can do is try not to abuse language in this way yourself and call it out when you see others (iyo) doing so.0 -
So at low rates of infection R number is not the best indicator and raw data about new infections is? I had guessed the answer but needed confirmation. So are we now obsessed by R?Pulpstar said:
1 person having the disease and passing to another person and that person passing to another person means an "R" of 1, whereas 100 people passing to 70 and those 70 passing to 49 means an "R" of 0.7.nichomar said:A simple question and probably shows my ignorance, why does the R number appear to go up even when the number of new cases reduces. I’ve watched the number of new cases reduce in Valencia drop dramatically with 0 yesterday but the R number creeps upwards to 1?
After 3 periods of transmission you have 3 people infected in the first scenario and 219 total in the second but the R for the second scenario is lower.
This is why you want to push R down so much more early.0 -
Many bullies wont realise they are bullies. It is one of those descriptors which is both over and under utilised.AlastairMeeks said:
You’d have thought a few key figures in this government would be very chary of a precedent that bullying accusations are a bar to a peerage. But perhaps they don’t think that far ahead.MikeSmithson said:
Except we now have an extremist Tory PM prepared to abandon traditional constitutional element by only wanting to reward a speaker who has pleased them. Any government that has Cummings as a key figure is not in a position to give lectures on bullying.BluestBlue said:
By electing someone like Corbyn as leader, to my mind Labour were to the ones to declare total war on us. If he had somehow managed to win, that would have been the end of the British economy and society as most people know it.OnlyLivingBoy said:
Some Tory posters on this site have similar issues, believing that they have to fight dirty because Blair somehow cheated by winning in 1997, rather than merely running on a popular centrist platform against an exhausted and demoralised government. Tories don't have a divine right to run this country, the peaceful transfer of power between competing political parties with a well informed electorate helped by a fair and independent media should be something that we all aspire to, instead of some kind of politics as total war mindset in which the truth is the first casualty.AlastairMeeks said:
Actually, a large part of the problem is their residual paranoia from that time. All this rubbish about a deep state trying to thwart them comes from the belief that government was somehow rigged against them.HYUFD said:
They were out of power for 13 years from 1997 to 2010 but managed to surviveAlastairMeeks said:At some point the Conservatives are going to be out of power. I hope they can wrap up well for the cold.
Since then, they've managed to acquire a dull, normal-looking mask, but we know what lies beneath, because we've seen it with our own eyes for the last 5 years and aren't going to forget any time soon.
In the face of that, the Tories are not showing even 10% of the ruthlessness they should to ensure that Labour never goes down that path again.1 -
"It is also not respecting the Speakership."
Nobody did more to disrespect the Speakership than Bercow himself.0 -
That could be very helpful indeed.Nigelb said:Another paper on T Cell responses to the viral proteins:
Targets of T Cell Responses to SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus in Humans with COVID-19 Disease and Unexposed Individuals
https://www.cell.com/cell/pdf/S0092-8674(20)30610-3.pdf
Understanding adaptive immunity to SARS-CoV-2 is important for vaccine development, interpreting coro- navirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pathogenesis, and calibration of pandemic control measures. Using HLA class I and II predicted peptide ‘‘megapools,’’ circulating SARS-CoV-2-specific CD8+ and CD4+ T cells were identified in $70% and 100% of COVID-19 convalescent patients, respectively. CD4+ T cell responses to spike, the main target of most vaccine efforts, were robust and correlated with the magnitude of the anti- SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgA titers. The M, spike, and N proteins each accounted for 11%–27% of the total CD4+ response, with additional responses commonly targeting nsp3, nsp4, ORF3a, and ORF8, among others. For CD8+ T cells, spike and M were recognized, with at least eight SARS-CoV-2 ORFs targeted. Importantly, we detected SARS-CoV-2-reactive CD4+ T cells in $40%–60% of unexposed individuals, suggesting cross- reactive T cell recognition between circulating ‘‘common cold’’ coronaviruses and SARS-CoV-2.
It depends if it provides some direct immunity, or if it gives the immune system a running start when infected (from my uneducated reading of it - may be completely off base).0 -
To coin a phrase, a conservative is a Wokeist whose gated community has been set on fire by 'protesters with legitimate grievances'Sandpit said:LOL at the basketball writer in the US, who was Tweeting his support for the rioters - until they turned up to his own gated community...
https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1267127192330346500
1 -
How about give it some time to actually judge, rather than a few contact tracers moaning to the press?Scott_xP said:
OK, post a different considered scientific assessment that says track and trace is workingturbotubbs said:No - that is a considered scientific assessment.
1 -
On topic. :-)
To my eye there is considerable overreach by OGH in the header - is there any evidence at all that BJ has actually done what OGH is stating?
AIUI it is the HoL Appointments Panel that stopped it - and that is a body so achingly balanced that it even has a Lib Dem on it. If Boris wanted to shaft Bercow, it is not even clear that he has had the opportunity.
For me, it is unconscionable that Bercow gets a peerage whilst the credible allegations of bullying against him stand, and he abused his own personal position to prevent an independent inveestigation.
This current is just a whirlwind that he sowed, and is reaping. It may be just for now, but he is suffering the consequences of his own actions.3 -
Polling people on what they saw in the news last week is not the same as asking them what they actually care about.Scott_xP said:
It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy that if the media class want to talk about their pet story, to the exclusion of almost everything else, for a whole week then people are going to notice that story.1 -
Take it a step further and make them select rather than just vet the nominees.NickPalmer said:
Generally speaking, it seems undesirable that the government of the day should be making these decisions at all. That's what we have an independent Appointments Commission for. A thankless task, I expect, but they're presumably paid for it.Wulfrun_Phil said:
In Bercow's case, it's by no means as simple as that. Firstly, there is the matter of his alleged bullying conduct towards several members of his staff, and the fact that it is the subject of an unresolved parliamentary investigation. Secondly, precedent and tradition meant nothing to Bercow in 2019 when he was quite content to throw the parliamentary rule book out of the window to suit his own political purposes. It is not a matter even that he disregarded neutrality in order to stand in the way of the government of the day (or "failed to please" as you put it), it is that he trashed precedent in order to do so.MikeSmithson said:
Johnson has now created a new rule - outgoing speakers only get elevated to a peerage if they have pleased the government of the day. That is a constitutional outrage.Fishing said:"In blocking a peerage to Bercow Johnson is also going against the advice of Bercow’s successor, Lindsay Hoyle. Back in December he urged Downing Street to follow “custom and practice”."
I have respect for Lindsay Hoyle, certainly after Bercow, but he's hardly uninterested in this row, is he?
"Real Tories don’t ignore longstanding traditions."
They do if they don't make sense in a particular case, as is arguably true here.
I personally think honours should be earned, rather than be given automatically for doing your job.
Anyway, if the HLAC decided not to recommend Bercow, at least until the allegations are settled, then wouldn't it be a breach of convention for Boris to nominate him?
Likewise, it is reasonable to refuse Karie Murphy's nomination whilst she is under active investigation for alleged anti-semitic offences. Bercow could hardly be granted a Lordship if Murphy is refused on similar grounds. So at least there is consistency in the PM's actions.
The refusal that I have difficulty with is that of Tom Watson. Whatever his errors in believing the paedophile accuser, he was not the only one to be taken in and his motives were good. He acted in good faith to try and shake the cage in the face of what he thought was an establishment cover up. He's being refused a peerage for no more than an error of judgement made in good faith, despite decades of long service to the Labour Party.0 -
I dont even get what he is criticising then. It seems in the vein of that economist 'the uk might have done x if we were in the eu' post yesterdayScott_xP said:2 -
1 - R changes are based on a few days in the past when we measure them (I believe). It gives more a prediction of new cases in about 5 days time.nichomar said:A simple question and probably shows my ignorance, why does the R number appear to go up even when the number of new cases reduces. I’ve watched the number of new cases reduce in Valencia drop dramatically with 0 yesterday but the R number creeps upwards to 1?
2 - A rise in R would indicate a slowing of the decline rather than a rise, as long as it stays below 1.
So a rise from 0.5 to 0.9, say, would still see a decline in new cases. A rise to 1 would see a plateau - about five days later.
0
