By the way, the utterly vile 'Bobby Sands' trend yesterday from Rangers football fans* is a reminder that whilst we may look in sanctimonious horror at Trump's sectarianism, it exists in the UK not so far from the surface.
It's why the Northern Ireland peace process culminating in the Good Friday Agreement must never be sacrificed on the altar of far right ideology.
Joe Biden and the EU will ensure it isn't.
(* 8-0 = Ate-Nothing = Bobby Sands.)
Not sure I understand how Brexit is 'far-right'. By definition far right is a form of extreme nationalism, which by virtue of it winning a referendum Brexit cannot be. Neither does it seem to be excessively nativistic since we seem to want to swap a trade and political arrangement with the EU for different ones including with Japan. Finally I cannot see how Brexit is authoritarian in itself.
Could you have just said right wing ideology? Is there a need to ramp it up into something it is not?
Regarding the Rangers/Bobby Sands stuff - this must be really heavily ingrained and passed down the generations because anyone much younger than me would not remember Bobby Sands and it took me a few minutes for the 8 - 0 to have any meaning.
I'm pretty sure they don't teach it in church but culturally and probably geographically groups tend to congregate. It is in the schoolyard, on the terraces and in the pubs it is handed down. The fact is that in certain circles this kind of racism is acceptable.
It’s not racist though - you are effectively saying that only a nationalist extremist can be a true Irishman.
It’s unpleasant, sectarian and should be discouraged. But not inherently racist.
It would be helpful for international comparison purposes if the British Tories could switch their colour to red and Labour to blue.
Surely Tories to red and the LibDems to Blue. Labour and the Democrats aren't a valid comparison when you look at their policies.
Yes, the Democrats don’t really have a sister party here right now. Clearly Biden, Harris and all the Obama Dems likely to be in his admin don’t identify with Boris and Cummings. Equally though, Labour’s vision would definitely be seen as ‘radical leftist’ by Dems in the US, with the exception of those such as Bernie and AOC.
Strip out the issue of Brexit/the EU and Biden is very close to Boris on most international issues. So too though is Starmer actually.
Yeah, apparently Biden doesn’t see it like though re Boris:
Sounds like an excuse to me - world leaders work with people and countries they may find outright despicable and who have committed actual violent crimes, nevermind one who years ago said something racist. I don't doubt there may be genuine feeling against Boris, but it would only lead to significant effect if they also thought it was in american interests, which they would act towards regardless of if Boris had in fact worshipped Obama. To suggest otherwise would be to suggest Biden and co are unprofessional and pretty bad at their jobs, and I don't see the evidence of that. But Boris doesn't seem well placed for any favours, nor to strike up a casual bonhomie at least.
Yes, but it would probably be a fair guess that Biden hates Trump, and if he sees Johnson as a British Trump this is plenty enough reason to humiliate him. I think we could be about to see an all time low in UK-US relations until Bozo leaves office.
A cooling may occur, but that's about it I think. I think the first time they meet Boris would be able to impress upon Biden that he is not a British Trump. People will cry two face at that, but as is even accepted by many of us who dislike Boris, he is more complex a character than Trump and while I do not think they would ever be friendly, so long as the Irish situation gets a resolution I find it hard to believe Biden, a man praised for willingness to work with others, would seriously hold a grudge against the British PM to the point of compromising relations between the countries, because he insulted his boss and friend years ago.
If smaller, nimble, agile really was better (it's not), then TVR would still be selling cars and Sainsbury's would be out of business
Hey! I was the dog's bollocks in my Chimaera.
I can hear it rusting over the Internet.
TVR - one of those British white elephants, like the Sinclair Spectrum.
The Spectrum was one of the most successful home computers of all time and pivotal for the massive UK software industry that we now have.
I suppose that does underplay it a little, but relative to what's possible it also seems quite a typical British tale, to me. With its record and expertise going back 60 years, Britain could have created something approaching Microsoft, not only a software industry.
The Spectrum, like all Sinclair computers was an attempt to build a computer so cheaply that it was barely viable. Quality control was non-existent. As was product development.
I learnt to program on them, so I know of what I speak.
The perfect illustration - the original ZX81 had an insane keyboard - completely impossible to type on. All the connections wobbled, so the computer could crash at any moment. A company (I forget the name) built a nice metal case, with a real keyboard. You simply transferred the guts of the ZX-81 into it. No trailing cables (power supply, nicely ventilated was inside), no flakey connections. A massive, massive improvement.
SInclair threatened to sue them - for something....
In the end, Sinclair died from trying to flog the same, barely viable products, when the world had moved on.
Interestingly, it was only after Amstrad and the Pound Shop Donald Trump took over, that they produced a computer with a keyboard you could type on.....
That does seem to be the preferred usage, but I find it a bit annoying in English, where we generally don't change endings according to gender (we would say "bravo" to both men and women without any issue), and have tended to move away from eg gendered job titles. I guess it's because so many Latinas/Latinos in the US are also Spanish-speaking that English has adopted Spanish morphology here... I've seen Latinx but how do you even pronounce that?
We do have quite a few gendered terms, although many/most are adopted from Latin languages.
Fiance, fiancee
Confidant, confidante
Blond, blonde
Are some examples.
Also, I have never understood why the masculine should be the preferred neuter – which seems to be the received wisdom.
Also: strong/bossy, energetic/feisty
Why are some of our nouns stubbornly gendered? 'This ship and all who sail in him' just sounds awful, for no logical reason.
"she" or "her" for ships (or cars) sounds awful to me. What's wrong with "it"?
Some people also use the feminine form for trains. Weirdos.
... The American president looking up to fascists, yearning to be one of them even though he never quite could. I found that so so sad. And you know what's even sadder? They'll be laughing at him now. Putin, Xi, Kim, all of them, the cool gang, the real deal, the in crowd, they'll be laughing at poor Donald, the boy that used to hang around.
I think that just about sums him up. Perhaps we should be grateful that he was a 3rd rater? Can you imagine what things would have been like if he had become a competent fascist?
This is so, so true.
And the really scary thing is that at some time in the foreseeable future the American HItler will emerge.
Maybe in the next 20 years, maybe in the next 200. But there is nothing in the US system to stop him*
(*Or her, but most likely a 'him').
I think automatically reaching for Hitler when talking about fascism is a UK bias and not necessarily helpful. I do worry that a Western democracy will fall into authoritarian fascism (or indeed leftism) in the next 20 years, the signs are there, but it's likely to more resemble South American than German fascism, substantially domestic / isolationist but with a bit of sabre rattling for good measure. And it is likely, in the strictest sense of the word, to be more progressive / gradualist in nature, unwinding democratic protections as opportunity allows, as indeed Trump did. The Anglosphere is prone, having had a mild dose of neoliberalism (5-10 years ago I thought the risk was initially from a much more extreme libertarian agenda and subsequent swing back but perhaps what we had already was enough), consolidated, unconcerned media control, and no history of having lived under authoritarianism or belief that we could end up there, but Salvini in particular shows the risk doesn't need all those conditions.
Yes, I think we have to put Hitler himself to one side as what he turned out to be is a distraction. The issue is the man as he appeared in 1932/33 to the German conservatives, to illustrate the potential for a semi-constitutional route to eventual dictatorship, of which 1930s Germany seems to be a good historical example.
Yes exactly. Godwin should not prevent Hitler being invoked in political debate when it's appropriate. And it sometimes is.
If the EU agree a deal making those clauses redundant then they can be removed as part of the deal.
If they don't then the clauses are necessary and it's up to the elected chamber to make the decision.
In what way necessary - given that implementing them breaks international treaties which will have consequences now all the world's leadership once again believes treaties shouldn't be ignored.
If there is an EU deal we can scrap those IMB provisions as part of the deal as redundant.
If there isn't then looking after ourselves will be more important than what other leaders think. Especially when those leaders are prepared to do the same when it suits them to do so.
OK, let's assume that this version of the IMB is needed and appropriate. Plenty disagree, but let's assume.
The government must know that the Lords can delay stuff for a year. So a government playing a tough but straight bat would introduce the IMB a bit more than twelve months before it is needed. But they didn't.
So either the government is clueless, or there's another game (heaven knows what) going on. Or both.
Did the Government have a majority in the Commons 12 months ago? I think you're mixing things up.
Furthermore no the Lords should not delay things for a year. They can, but then the Government can stuff the Lords or abolish it if need be too. The Lords should respect the supremacy of the elected chamber.
Not at all, my piratical friend.
31/13/20 is a deadline the government imposed on itself. A longer transition was on the table (as recently as this summer, I think). I understand why the government didn't take the opportunity (though I think they were foolish not to do so), but that choice has consequences. Remember also that the government could have leapt over the hurdle of the Lords by putting the details of this bill in their 2019 manifesto. If they really wanted this bill, their planning has been atrocious.
And I'd he careful about using "technically they can, but they shouldn't, because the consequences will be bad" as an argument. That's basically why a lot of people think this IMB is a serious mistake.
That's fine I understand that some think the IMB is a serious mistake - they can make that argument and it is for the elected chamber to decide. If we're not happy with what the elected chamber decides then another election is due no later than 2024.
Democracy: I'm a fan of it, are you?
Right, so we're back to "anyone who disagrees with Boris is against democracy". Normal service has resumed.
No absolutely not. If a majority of MPs vote against Boris then that is democracy.
Anyone who thinks the elected chamber shouldn't make the decisions is against democracy. Whether the elected chamber is making decisions I like or oppose I respect their right to make the decisions, because I know if they make a decision I dislike we can vote again next time.
And there are no limits to this doctrine? Not if Boris decides to sterilise the unfit, or put the races more susceptible to covid into concentration camps, say? Fine, because you can always vote him out in 2024?
Answer: yes, there are. Conforming to the rules of the democracy is just an entry level requirement, not a free pass. And why you think you can call yourself a libertarian when your favoured model of government is the complete surrender of liberty, in five-year tranches, is a puzzle.
Always with this slippery slop fallacy. The IMB is not putting people into concentration camps or sterilising the unfit. 🙄
As for why I as a libertarian support democracy the answer is because democracy is the most liberal form of government that exists. Yes democracy does mean surrendering some of our liberties for five years but the absence of democracy means surrendering them indefinitely.
At elections I will support liberal governments but if an illiberal one wins I would hope to defeat it next time with ballots not bullets.
So you accept that democracy means surrendering some of our liberties but that is absolutely fine because it is a consequence of us having the best available system of government.
Struggling to find an analogy here, Phil.
It means delegating them temporarily to people we choose then getting them back automatically to redelegate to whomever we choose again next time. Yes. The choice remains always ours and ours alone.
If you come up with an analogy please do let me know.
Temporarily until you then delegate it again so hence actually continuously.
And as to the choice - when exactly do you get the choice to end our democratic system of government? So no, you don't get a choice.
You are happy to sacrifice some element of sovereignty er, liberty for the greater good because you realise that the system wherein such small amount of liberty is sacrificed is superior to all others.
LOL
You're making contradictory circular arguments.
I don't want to end our democratic system of government, I support it.
Yes I am not an anarchist I have never said I am an ararchist. It is about balancing judgements. The balance in favour of democracy is overwhelming. The same does not apply to other issues.
So to clarify.
Membership of the EU which requires some amount of loss of, or pooled sovereignty for the greater good of an economic system = beyond the pale.
Democratic system of govt which requires some amount of loss of liberty for the greater good of a preferred system of government = all fine and dandy.
No.
Membership of the EU was never beyond the pale, I was a Remainer for most of my life and said I'd rather Remain than support Theresa May's deal.
So no, you have totally misunderstood everything I've ever written it seems because that is not what I am saying whatsoever. I am entirely OK with the UK pooling sovereignty with other nations if that is what the UK votes to do and so long as the UK can vote to end that in the future.
It could. And did. So that was the last of your objections to EU membership.
Sure, and it is right that it is tested every generation. 40 years is about long, but every 25 years or so it’s a very fair question to ask
It would be helpful for international comparison purposes if the British Tories could switch their colour to red and Labour to blue.
Surely Tories to red and the LibDems to Blue. Labour and the Democrats aren't a valid comparison when you look at their policies.
Yes, the Democrats don’t really have a sister party here right now. Clearly Biden, Harris and all the Obama Dems likely to be in his admin don’t identify with Boris and Cummings. Equally though, Labour’s vision would definitely be seen as ‘radical leftist’ by Dems in the US, with the exception of those such as Bernie and AOC.
The Democrats are basically a combination of Starmer Labour, Blarites, LDs and Remainer Tories now with a few exceptions as you say on the far left like Sanders and AOC who would be closer to Corbyn, the Republicans in their current Trumpite guise are basically only linked to the hardest of Brexiteers over here like Farage or IDS
Don't forget to bear in mind, as often, that what is far left in the US is not far left in the UK or Europe. Sanders' health plans are mainstream in Europe, for instance.
True but what is far right in the UK is not far right in the US either, Farage would be a mainstream Republican in the USA for instance.
Basically on the whole the Democrats tend to be the more centrist party in the USA and the Tories and the main centre right parties on the continent tend to be the more centrist parties in Europe eg Merkel's CDU
Biden - rejected the Medicare For All option Current UK government - Above inflation increases (just like every government since 1945) for the NHS
Biden - talked about some goals for climate change Current UK Government - Coal fired power stations closed and gone. Massive build out of renewables. Target date set for 100% ZE vehicles on the roads.
etc etc.
hard to think of a policy where Biden is to the left of the current UK government, in fact.
Sanders would actually be about where the UK government is. AOC has no policies as left as the Corbynites, that I can think of...
Absurd, Biden wants to increase taxes on the rich, the Tories under Cameron cut the top tax rate for the rich, Biden will increase spending and regulation, the Tories pursued austerity under Cameron and May, only easing under Boris. Biden is close to the unions, the Tories are the party of Thatcher who as with Reagan curtailed union strikes.
Biden is anti Brexit and will reverse Trump's immigration restrictions, Patel is ending EU free movement and bringing in a points system and talking about putting asylum seekers in an offshore island to process.
Biden is also signing back up to the Paris climate accords.
Sanders is diluted Corbynite, AOC is a Corbynite.
Biden is Starmer Labour and while Trump is clearly right of Boris, only Farage would be a Trumpite in the UK, Biden is left of the Tories
Perhaps, but only left of the current Johnson led Brexit-Party-Lite version of the Tories. Biden is very much where most genuine One Nation Tories are on the left/right continuum.And please don't tell me Johnson is a One Nation Tory - he is just a One Ego Tory - where any belief set will be OK so long as it suits his ambition.
But then recall that the UK has ordered enough of the Pfizer vaccine for only 20% of the population ...
Makes a start. Everyone in the world will be after various vaccines (except the Russians? How's the one they've been using going?), and they can presumably only produce so much so fast. Getting the most vulnerable covered by the millions would have a massive effect.
It would be helpful for international comparison purposes if the British Tories could switch their colour to red and Labour to blue.
Surely Tories to red and the LibDems to Blue. Labour and the Democrats aren't a valid comparison when you look at their policies.
Yes, the Democrats don’t really have a sister party here right now. Clearly Biden, Harris and all the Obama Dems likely to be in his admin don’t identify with Boris and Cummings. Equally though, Labour’s vision would definitely be seen as ‘radical leftist’ by Dems in the US, with the exception of those such as Bernie and AOC.
Strip out the issue of Brexit/the EU and Biden is very close to Boris on most international issues. So too though is Starmer actually.
Yeah, apparently Biden doesn’t see it like though re Boris:
Sounds like an excuse to me - world leaders work with people and countries they may find outright despicable and who have committed actual violent crimes, nevermind one who years ago said something racist. I don't doubt there may be genuine feeling against Boris, but it would only lead to significant effect if they also thought it was in american interests, which they would act towards regardless of if Boris had in fact worshipped Obama. To suggest otherwise would be to suggest Biden and co are unprofessional and pretty bad at their jobs, and I don't see the evidence of that. But Boris doesn't seem well placed for any favours, nor to strike up a casual bonhomie at least.
Broadly agree with this. I also wouldn't be surprised if there is some (perfectly sensible) positioning here in terms of indicating Johnson is in a weaker negotiating position with Biden, so he should adjust his expectations and be prepared to give ground.
I take the point that Biden and Johnson don't appear likely to have very compatible personalities. But that's to be seen - there have been some distinctively odd couples in the history of foreign relations.
It would be helpful for international comparison purposes if the British Tories could switch their colour to red and Labour to blue.
Surely Tories to red and the LibDems to Blue. Labour and the Democrats aren't a valid comparison when you look at their policies.
Yes, the Democrats don’t really have a sister party here right now. Clearly Biden, Harris and all the Obama Dems likely to be in his admin don’t identify with Boris and Cummings. Equally though, Labour’s vision would definitely be seen as ‘radical leftist’ by Dems in the US, with the exception of those such as Bernie and AOC.
Strip out the issue of Brexit/the EU and Biden is very close to Boris on most international issues. So too though is Starmer actually.
Yeah, apparently Biden doesn’t see it like though re Boris:
Sounds like an excuse to me - world leaders work with people and countries they may find outright despicable and who have committed actual violent crimes, nevermind one who years ago said something racist. I don't doubt there may be genuine feeling against Boris, but it would only lead to significant effect if they also thought it was in american interests, which they would act towards regardless of if Boris had in fact worshipped Obama. To suggest otherwise would be to suggest Biden and co are unprofessional and pretty bad at their jobs, and I don't see the evidence of that. But Boris doesn't seem well placed for any favours, nor to strike up a casual bonhomie at least.
Yes, but it would probably be a fair guess that Biden hates Trump, and if he sees Johnson as a British Trump this is plenty enough reason to humiliate him. I think we could be about to see an all time low in UK-US relations until Bozo leaves office.
A cooling may occur, but that's about it I think. I think the first time they meet Boris would be able to impress upon Biden that he is not a British Trump. People will cry two face at that, but as is even accepted by many of us who dislike Boris, he is more complex a character than Trump and while I do not think they would ever be friendly, so long as the Irish situation gets a resolution I find it hard to believe Biden, a man praised for willing to work with others, would seriously hold a grudge against the British PM to the point of compromising relations between the countries, because he insulted his boss and friend years ago.
Kamala Harris insulted Joe Biden to his face and became his running mate.
Biden and Boris will work together for the same reason as every PM and President has in the modern era. Respect goes to the office not the individual.
If the EU agree a deal making those clauses redundant then they can be removed as part of the deal.
If they don't then the clauses are necessary and it's up to the elected chamber to make the decision.
In what way necessary - given that implementing them breaks international treaties which will have consequences now all the world's leadership once again believes treaties shouldn't be ignored.
If there is an EU deal we can scrap those IMB provisions as part of the deal as redundant.
If there isn't then looking after ourselves will be more important than what other leaders think. Especially when those leaders are prepared to do the same when it suits them to do so.
OK, let's assume that this version of the IMB is needed and appropriate. Plenty disagree, but let's assume.
The government must know that the Lords can delay stuff for a year. So a government playing a tough but straight bat would introduce the IMB a bit more than twelve months before it is needed. But they didn't.
So either the government is clueless, or there's another game (heaven knows what) going on. Or both.
Did the Government have a majority in the Commons 12 months ago? I think you're mixing things up.
Furthermore no the Lords should not delay things for a year. They can, but then the Government can stuff the Lords or abolish it if need be too. The Lords should respect the supremacy of the elected chamber.
Not at all, my piratical friend.
31/13/20 is a deadline the government imposed on itself. A longer transition was on the table (as recently as this summer, I think). I understand why the government didn't take the opportunity (though I think they were foolish not to do so), but that choice has consequences. Remember also that the government could have leapt over the hurdle of the Lords by putting the details of this bill in their 2019 manifesto. If they really wanted this bill, their planning has been atrocious.
And I'd he careful about using "technically they can, but they shouldn't, because the consequences will be bad" as an argument. That's basically why a lot of people think this IMB is a serious mistake.
That's fine I understand that some think the IMB is a serious mistake - they can make that argument and it is for the elected chamber to decide. If we're not happy with what the elected chamber decides then another election is due no later than 2024.
Democracy: I'm a fan of it, are you?
Right, so we're back to "anyone who disagrees with Boris is against democracy". Normal service has resumed.
No absolutely not. If a majority of MPs vote against Boris then that is democracy.
Anyone who thinks the elected chamber shouldn't make the decisions is against democracy. Whether the elected chamber is making decisions I like or oppose I respect their right to make the decisions, because I know if they make a decision I dislike we can vote again next time.
And there are no limits to this doctrine? Not if Boris decides to sterilise the unfit, or put the races more susceptible to covid into concentration camps, say? Fine, because you can always vote him out in 2024?
Answer: yes, there are. Conforming to the rules of the democracy is just an entry level requirement, not a free pass. And why you think you can call yourself a libertarian when your favoured model of government is the complete surrender of liberty, in five-year tranches, is a puzzle.
Always with this slippery slop fallacy. The IMB is not putting people into concentration camps or sterilising the unfit. 🙄
As for why I as a libertarian support democracy the answer is because democracy is the most liberal form of government that exists. Yes democracy does mean surrendering some of our liberties for five years but the absence of democracy means surrendering them indefinitely.
At elections I will support liberal governments but if an illiberal one wins I would hope to defeat it next time with ballots not bullets.
So you accept that democracy means surrendering some of our liberties but that is absolutely fine because it is a consequence of us having the best available system of government.
Struggling to find an analogy here, Phil.
It means delegating them temporarily to people we choose then getting them back automatically to redelegate to whomever we choose again next time. Yes. The choice remains always ours and ours alone.
If you come up with an analogy please do let me know.
Temporarily until you then delegate it again so hence actually continuously.
And as to the choice - when exactly do you get the choice to end our democratic system of government? So no, you don't get a choice.
You are happy to sacrifice some element of sovereignty er, liberty for the greater good because you realise that the system wherein such small amount of liberty is sacrificed is superior to all others.
LOL
You're making contradictory circular arguments.
I don't want to end our democratic system of government, I support it.
Yes I am not an anarchist I have never said I am an ararchist. It is about balancing judgements. The balance in favour of democracy is overwhelming. The same does not apply to other issues.
So to clarify.
Membership of the EU which requires some amount of loss of, or pooled sovereignty for the greater good of an economic system = beyond the pale.
Democratic system of govt which requires some amount of loss of liberty for the greater good of a preferred system of government = all fine and dandy.
No.
Membership of the EU was never beyond the pale, I was a Remainer for most of my life and said I'd rather Remain than support Theresa May's deal.
So no, you have totally misunderstood everything I've ever written it seems because that is not what I am saying whatsoever. I am entirely OK with the UK pooling sovereignty with other nations if that is what the UK votes to do and so long as the UK can vote to end that in the future.
It could. And did. So that was the last of your objections to EU membership.
Sure, and it is right that it is tested every generation. 40 years is about long, but every 25 years or so it’s a very fair question to ask
A N Other party could put rejoining in their manifesto and it would from here be four years.
Am I missing something here? That means even with the vaccine we have an covid infection rate of just over 240 per hundred 100,000? That doesnt sound like 90% effective to me unless they mean they deliberately then infected all 39k people to see how many would get it
If the EU agree a deal making those clauses redundant then they can be removed as part of the deal.
If they don't then the clauses are necessary and it's up to the elected chamber to make the decision.
In what way necessary - given that implementing them breaks international treaties which will have consequences now all the world's leadership once again believes treaties shouldn't be ignored.
If there is an EU deal we can scrap those IMB provisions as part of the deal as redundant.
If there isn't then looking after ourselves will be more important than what other leaders think. Especially when those leaders are prepared to do the same when it suits them to do so.
OK, let's assume that this version of the IMB is needed and appropriate. Plenty disagree, but let's assume.
The government must know that the Lords can delay stuff for a year. So a government playing a tough but straight bat would introduce the IMB a bit more than twelve months before it is needed. But they didn't.
So either the government is clueless, or there's another game (heaven knows what) going on. Or both.
Did the Government have a majority in the Commons 12 months ago? I think you're mixing things up.
Furthermore no the Lords should not delay things for a year. They can, but then the Government can stuff the Lords or abolish it if need be too. The Lords should respect the supremacy of the elected chamber.
Not at all, my piratical friend.
31/13/20 is a deadline the government imposed on itself. A longer transition was on the table (as recently as this summer, I think). I understand why the government didn't take the opportunity (though I think they were foolish not to do so), but that choice has consequences. Remember also that the government could have leapt over the hurdle of the Lords by putting the details of this bill in their 2019 manifesto. If they really wanted this bill, their planning has been atrocious.
And I'd he careful about using "technically they can, but they shouldn't, because the consequences will be bad" as an argument. That's basically why a lot of people think this IMB is a serious mistake.
That's fine I understand that some think the IMB is a serious mistake - they can make that argument and it is for the elected chamber to decide. If we're not happy with what the elected chamber decides then another election is due no later than 2024.
Democracy: I'm a fan of it, are you?
Right, so we're back to "anyone who disagrees with Boris is against democracy". Normal service has resumed.
No absolutely not. If a majority of MPs vote against Boris then that is democracy.
Anyone who thinks the elected chamber shouldn't make the decisions is against democracy. Whether the elected chamber is making decisions I like or oppose I respect their right to make the decisions, because I know if they make a decision I dislike we can vote again next time.
And there are no limits to this doctrine? Not if Boris decides to sterilise the unfit, or put the races more susceptible to covid into concentration camps, say? Fine, because you can always vote him out in 2024?
Answer: yes, there are. Conforming to the rules of the democracy is just an entry level requirement, not a free pass. And why you think you can call yourself a libertarian when your favoured model of government is the complete surrender of liberty, in five-year tranches, is a puzzle.
Always with this slippery slop fallacy. The IMB is not putting people into concentration camps or sterilising the unfit. 🙄
As for why I as a libertarian support democracy the answer is because democracy is the most liberal form of government that exists. Yes democracy does mean surrendering some of our liberties for five years but the absence of democracy means surrendering them indefinitely.
At elections I will support liberal governments but if an illiberal one wins I would hope to defeat it next time with ballots not bullets.
So you accept that democracy means surrendering some of our liberties but that is absolutely fine because it is a consequence of us having the best available system of government.
Struggling to find an analogy here, Phil.
It means delegating them temporarily to people we choose then getting them back automatically to redelegate to whomever we choose again next time. Yes. The choice remains always ours and ours alone.
If you come up with an analogy please do let me know.
Temporarily until you then delegate it again so hence actually continuously.
And as to the choice - when exactly do you get the choice to end our democratic system of government? So no, you don't get a choice.
You are happy to sacrifice some element of sovereignty er, liberty for the greater good because you realise that the system wherein such small amount of liberty is sacrificed is superior to all others.
LOL
You're making contradictory circular arguments.
I don't want to end our democratic system of government, I support it.
Yes I am not an anarchist I have never said I am an ararchist. It is about balancing judgements. The balance in favour of democracy is overwhelming. The same does not apply to other issues.
So to clarify.
Membership of the EU which requires some amount of loss of, or pooled sovereignty for the greater good of an economic system = beyond the pale.
Democratic system of govt which requires some amount of loss of liberty for the greater good of a preferred system of government = all fine and dandy.
No.
Membership of the EU was never beyond the pale, I was a Remainer for most of my life and said I'd rather Remain than support Theresa May's deal.
So no, you have totally misunderstood everything I've ever written it seems because that is not what I am saying whatsoever. I am entirely OK with the UK pooling sovereignty with other nations if that is what the UK votes to do and so long as the UK can vote to end that in the future.
It could. And did. So that was the last of your objections to Brexit.
I don't object to Brexit.
Yes sorry. I meant the last of your objections to our membership of the EU was that we couldn't vote to end the arrangement which we of course did do so in fact it turns out that you had no objections to our membership of the EU.
Except that was never my objection. 🤦🏻♂️
I never said that, you are inventing that and fighting a straw man.
As I understand it you didn't like the loss of sovereignty.
What actually was it? The colour of the flag?
Then you haven't understood anything I've ever written, I was never against the EU on principle like that.
Prior to the referendum I thought it worth paying the price of pooling our sovereignty for economic advantages but I have long thought the EU is not an effective organisation and during the campaign became convinced that the UK could better manage its own sovereignty. That pooling was no longer worth it. That is a judgement, the UK I think will be economically better off treating the EU as our neighbours that we trade with instead of being a member of the EU. If I thought otherwise I might have voted Remain. I am not a die-hard extremist.
Theresa May's backstop was a worse breach of sovereignty for me than EU membership was which is why I vehemently opposed that.
How extraordinary. You thought it would, as is commonly accepted, be a good thing for a trade deal negotiation to have the express aim of making trade conditions worse than they were previously.
Blimey, I mean I get the sovereignty right or wrong argument (wrong, obvs, but...) but yours?
Absolutely bonkers.
Genuine question - is there a single example that you can think of, of a country that, after a split/independence from empire etc has benefitted economically, in the short to medium term? I can't think of one.
South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Botswana, Argentina, Australia, Canada. Many have failed, however.
From what little I have read of it Botswana's story seems particualrly interesting.
If smaller, nimble, agile really was better (it's not), then TVR would still be selling cars and Sainsbury's would be out of business
Hey! I was the dog's bollocks in my Chimaera.
I can hear it rusting over the Internet.
TVR - one of those British white elephants, like the Sinclair Spectrum.
The Sinclair computers introduced computing and program writing to an enormous number of young people.
These things are all true, but relative to what Britain should have achieved in this field, I think it's hugely underperformed. To me these innovations are symbols of what could have been.
Fair point. Some at least was due to the British, at the relevant time, thinking that encouraging financial expertise and innovation was more important than doing the same for technical expertise and innovation.
It would be helpful for international comparison purposes if the British Tories could switch their colour to red and Labour to blue.
Internationally red is used for left of centre parties, so: It would be helpful for international comparison purposes if the american parties could switch their colours.
They used to alternate - the GOP were blue in 1980:
IIRC The incumbent party was normally red and the challenger blue.
Except that Gore was blue and Bush was red.
It "locked in" in 2000 when all the Florida wrangling kept the maps on the screens for weeks so they were used again in the same colours next time.
Washington Times had Dems as Red, GOP as Blue in 2000
America was just all over the place.
True, but I think TV news tended to use red for Bush and blue for Gore in 2000 and that is what locked it in place. It was a coincidence effectively no more and no less than that happened to be used in 2000 and that was the year it "stuck".
Seesawed just doesn't look right to me when written down.
If smaller, nimble, agile really was better (it's not), then TVR would still be selling cars and Sainsbury's would be out of business
Hey! I was the dog's bollocks in my Chimaera.
I can hear it rusting over the Internet.
TVR - one of those British white elephants, like the Sinclair Spectrum.
The Spectrum was one of the most successful home computers of all time and pivotal for the massive UK software industry that we now have.
I suppose that does underplay it a little, but relative to what's possible it also seems quite a typical British tale, to me. With its record and expertise going back 60 years, Britain could have created something approaching Microsoft, not only a software industry.
The Spectrum, like all Sinclair computers was an attempt to build a computer so cheaply that it was barely viable. Quality control was non-existent. As was product development.
I learnt to program on them, so I know of what I speak.
The perfect illustration - the original ZX81 had an insane keyboard - completely impossible to type on. All the connections wobbled, so the computer could crash at any moment. A company (I forget the name) built a nice metal case, with a real keyboard. You simply transferred the guts of the ZX-81 into it. No trailing cables (power supply, nicely ventilated was inside), no flakey connections. A massive, massive improvement.
SInclair threatened to sue them - for something....
In the end, Sinclair died from trying to flog the same, barely viable products, when the world had moved on.
Interestingly, it was only after Amstrad and the Pound Shop Donald Trump took over, that they produced a computer with a keyboard you could type on.....
Its a fascinating period aptly dramatised in the brilliant "Micro Men" programme. Sinclair - mass market computing pioneers with a crap product that was easy to use when it worked. Flogged to Amstrad Acorn - evolved into one of the biggest chip companies in the world Amstrad - the only one of the three who broke out of gaming into business. Fucked over by Seagate.
Am I missing something here? That means even with the vaccine we have an covid infection rate of just over 240 per hundred 100,000? That doesnt sound like 90% effective to me unless they mean they deliberately then infected all 39k people to see how many would get it
Most of the infected were not vaccinated (it's a bit badly written)
Constitutional monarchy helps on that front, but it is predicated on the monarch being above board and impartial.
Could make it worse. What if Chaz had killed himself when he made that cack handed attempt to land that 146 on Islay? We'd be staring down the dripping goo chute of King Andrew. Worse than Hitler.
Thgere might have been a move to equal opportunities inheritance ...
For the purposes of this conjecture Anne has broken her neck falling off one of those fucking horses that she so resembles.
The Islay incident was 1994, so Baldy n Hazza were already there.
It would be helpful for international comparison purposes if the British Tories could switch their colour to red and Labour to blue.
Surely Tories to red and the LibDems to Blue. Labour and the Democrats aren't a valid comparison when you look at their policies.
Yes, the Democrats don’t really have a sister party here right now. Clearly Biden, Harris and all the Obama Dems likely to be in his admin don’t identify with Boris and Cummings. Equally though, Labour’s vision would definitely be seen as ‘radical leftist’ by Dems in the US, with the exception of those such as Bernie and AOC.
Strip out the issue of Brexit/the EU and Biden is very close to Boris on most international issues. So too though is Starmer actually.
Yeah, apparently Biden doesn’t see it like though re Boris:
Sounds like an excuse to me - world leaders work with people and countries they may find outright despicable and who have committed actual violent crimes, nevermind one who years ago said something racist. I don't doubt there may be genuine feeling against Boris, but it would only lead to significant effect if they also thought it was in american interests, which they would act towards regardless of if Boris had in fact worshipped Obama. To suggest otherwise would be to suggest Biden and co are unprofessional and pretty bad at their jobs, and I don't see the evidence of that. But Boris doesn't seem well placed for any favours, nor to strike up a casual bonhomie at least.
Yes, but it would probably be a fair guess that Biden hates Trump, and if he sees Johnson as a British Trump this is plenty enough reason to humiliate him. I think we could be about to see an all time low in UK-US relations until Bozo leaves office.
A cooling may occur, but that's about it I think. I think the first time they meet Boris would be able to impress upon Biden that he is not a British Trump. People will cry two face at that, but as is even accepted by many of us who dislike Boris, he is more complex a character than Trump and while I do not think they would ever be friendly, so long as the Irish situation gets a resolution I find it hard to believe Biden, a man praised for willing to work with others, would seriously hold a grudge against the British PM to the point of compromising relations between the countries, because he insulted his boss and friend years ago.
Kamala Harris insulted Joe Biden to his face and became his running mate.
Biden and Boris will work together for the same reason as every PM and President has in the modern era. Respect goes to the office not the individual.
Respect for individuals and offices is earned, or thrown away. Boris Johnson is very good at the latter.
It would be helpful for international comparison purposes if the British Tories could switch their colour to red and Labour to blue.
Surely Tories to red and the LibDems to Blue. Labour and the Democrats aren't a valid comparison when you look at their policies.
Yes, the Democrats don’t really have a sister party here right now. Clearly Biden, Harris and all the Obama Dems likely to be in his admin don’t identify with Boris and Cummings. Equally though, Labour’s vision would definitely be seen as ‘radical leftist’ by Dems in the US, with the exception of those such as Bernie and AOC.
Strip out the issue of Brexit/the EU and Biden is very close to Boris on most international issues. So too though is Starmer actually.
Yeah, apparently Biden doesn’t see it like though re Boris:
Sounds like an excuse to me - world leaders work with people and countries they may find outright despicable and who have committed actual violent crimes, nevermind one who years ago said something racist. I don't doubt there may be genuine feeling against Boris, but it would only lead to significant effect if they also thought it was in american interests, which they would act towards regardless of if Boris had in fact worshipped Obama. To suggest otherwise would be to suggest Biden and co are unprofessional and pretty bad at their jobs, and I don't see the evidence of that. But Boris doesn't seem well placed for any favours, nor to strike up a casual bonhomie at least.
Yes, but it would probably be a fair guess that Biden hates Trump, and if he sees Johnson as a British Trump this is plenty enough reason to humiliate him. I think we could be about to see an all time low in UK-US relations until Bozo leaves office.
A cooling may occur, but that's about it I think. I think the first time they meet Boris would be able to impress upon Biden that he is not a British Trump. People will cry two face at that, but as is even accepted by many of us who dislike Boris, he is more complex a character than Trump and while I do not think they would ever be friendly, so long as the Irish situation gets a resolution I find it hard to believe Biden, a man praised for willing to work with others, would seriously hold a grudge against the British PM to the point of compromising relations between the countries, because he insulted his boss and friend years ago.
Kamala Harris insulted Joe Biden to his face and became his running mate.
Biden and Boris will work together for the same reason as every PM and President has in the modern era. Respect goes to the office not the individual.
Respect for individuals and offices is earned, or thrown away. Boris Johnson is very good at the latter.
No he's not, you've gone off the deep end in your dislike of him but Boris has successfully been able to charm and work with every foreign leader he's dealt with so far, including the Irish Taoiseach.
I see no reason why Biden will be the exception to the rule.
It would be helpful for international comparison purposes if the British Tories could switch their colour to red and Labour to blue.
Wrong way round surely?
Red is the colour of the Left - its how Aunt Augusta in Travels with My Aunt remembers which is port & which is starboard "Port wine is Red and Red is Left"!
It would be helpful for international comparison purposes if the British Tories could switch their colour to red and Labour to blue.
Surely Tories to red and the LibDems to Blue. Labour and the Democrats aren't a valid comparison when you look at their policies.
Yes, the Democrats don’t really have a sister party here right now. Clearly Biden, Harris and all the Obama Dems likely to be in his admin don’t identify with Boris and Cummings. Equally though, Labour’s vision would definitely be seen as ‘radical leftist’ by Dems in the US, with the exception of those such as Bernie and AOC.
The Democrats are basically a combination of Starmer Labour, Blarites, LDs and Remainer Tories now with a few exceptions as you say on the far left like Sanders and AOC who would be closer to Corbyn, the Republicans in their current Trumpite guise are basically only linked to the hardest of Brexiteers over here like Farage or IDS
Don't forget to bear in mind, as often, that what is far left in the US is not far left in the UK or Europe. Sanders' health plans are mainstream in Europe, for instance.
True but what is far right in the UK is not far right in the US either, Farage would be a mainstream Republican in the USA for instance.
Basically on the whole the Democrats tend to be the more centrist party in the USA and the Tories and the main centre right parties on the continent tend to be the more centrist parties in Europe eg Merkel's CDU
Biden - rejected the Medicare For All option Current UK government - Above inflation increases (just like every government since 1945) for the NHS
Biden - talked about some goals for climate change Current UK Government - Coal fired power stations closed and gone. Massive build out of renewables. Target date set for 100% ZE vehicles on the roads.
etc etc.
hard to think of a policy where Biden is to the left of the current UK government, in fact.
Sanders would actually be about where the UK government is. AOC has no policies as left as the Corbynites, that I can think of...
Absurd, Biden wants to increase taxes on the rich, the Tories under Cameron cut the top tax rate for the rich, Biden will increase spending and regulation, the Tories pursued austerity under Cameron and May, only easing under Boris. Biden is close to the unions, the Tories are the party of Thatcher who as with Reagan curtailed union strikes.
Biden is anti Brexit and will reverse Trump's immigration restrictions, Patel is ending EU free movement and bringing in a points system and talking about putting asylum seekers in an offshore island to process.
Biden is also signing back up to the Paris climate accords.
Sanders is diluted Corbynite, AOC is a Corbynite.
Biden is Starmer Labour and while Trump is clearly right of Boris, only Farage would be a Trumpite in the UK, Biden is left of the Tories
Perhaps, but only left of the current Johnson led Brexit-Party-Lite version of the Tories. Biden is very much where most genuine One Nation Tories are on the left/right continuum.And please don't tell me Johnson is a One Nation Tory - he is just a One Ego Tory - where any belief set will be OK so long as it suits his ambition.
In the UK it is true to say you could place all of Labour, the LDs, the Greens, the SNP, Plaid, the SDLP and SF and One Nation Tories as you define them, or Remainer Tories as they likely now are within the Democratic Party in one wing or another. However it has often been the case One Nation Tories got on well with the Democrats, Macmillan was close to JFK for example as Cameron was to Obama.
Only Thatcherite, pro hard Brexit Tories and Farage supporters and the DUP over here would be Republicans, certainly in the GOP's current form
Am I missing something here? That means even with the vaccine we have an covid infection rate of just over 240 per hundred 100,000? That doesnt sound like 90% effective to me unless they mean they deliberately then infected all 39k people to see how many would get it
Most of the infected were not vaccinated (it's a bit badly written)
Almost all of the infected got the placebo not the vaccine essentially.
Am I missing something here? That means even with the vaccine we have an covid infection rate of just over 240 per hundred 100,000? That doesnt sound like 90% effective to me unless they mean they deliberately then infected all 39k people to see how many would get it
Most of the infected were not vaccinated (it's a bit badly written)
You're more likely to get into the trial if you have a public facing job (Police, retail) so the incidence amongst the sampled entire group should be higher than average.
Am I missing something here? That means even with the vaccine we have an covid infection rate of just over 240 per hundred 100,000? That doesnt sound like 90% effective to me unless they mean they deliberately then infected all 39k people to see how many would get it
Most of the infected were not vaccinated (it's a bit badly written)
It would be helpful for international comparison purposes if the British Tories could switch their colour to red and Labour to blue.
Surely Tories to red and the LibDems to Blue. Labour and the Democrats aren't a valid comparison when you look at their policies.
Yes, the Democrats don’t really have a sister party here right now. Clearly Biden, Harris and all the Obama Dems likely to be in his admin don’t identify with Boris and Cummings. Equally though, Labour’s vision would definitely be seen as ‘radical leftist’ by Dems in the US, with the exception of those such as Bernie and AOC.
The Democrats are basically a combination of Starmer Labour, Blarites, LDs and Remainer Tories now with a few exceptions as you say on the far left like Sanders and AOC who would be closer to Corbyn, the Republicans in their current Trumpite guise are basically only linked to the hardest of Brexiteers over here like Farage or IDS
Don't forget to bear in mind, as often, that what is far left in the US is not far left in the UK or Europe. Sanders' health plans are mainstream in Europe, for instance.
True but what is far right in the UK is not far right in the US either, Farage would be a mainstream Republican in the USA for instance.
Basically on the whole the Democrats tend to be the more centrist party in the USA and the Tories and the main centre right parties on the continent tend to be the more centrist parties in Europe eg Merkel's CDU
Biden - rejected the Medicare For All option Current UK government - Above inflation increases (just like every government since 1945) for the NHS
Biden - talked about some goals for climate change Current UK Government - Coal fired power stations closed and gone. Massive build out of renewables. Target date set for 100% ZE vehicles on the roads.
etc etc.
hard to think of a policy where Biden is to the left of the current UK government, in fact.
Sanders would actually be about where the UK government is. AOC has no policies as left as the Corbynites, that I can think of...
Absurd, Biden wants to increase taxes on the rich, the Tories under Cameron cut the top tax rate for the rich, Biden will increase spending and regulation, the Tories pursued austerity under Cameron and May, only easing under Boris. Biden is close to the unions, the Tories are the party of Thatcher who as with Reagan curtailed union strikes.
Biden is anti Brexit and will reverse Trump's immigration restrictions, Patel is ending EU free movement and bringing in a points system and talking about putting asylum seekers in an offshore island to process.
Biden is also signing back up to the Paris climate accords.
Sanders is diluted Corbynite, AOC is a Corbynite.
Biden is Starmer Labour and while Trump is clearly right of Boris, only Farage would be a Trumpite in the UK, Biden is left of the Tories
Biden is trying to increase taxes - to less than the average European level.
On environmental regulation, H&S regulation and many others, the US is a long way behind
On the Paris Accords - the UK is one of the countries *leading* the charge on this.
etc etc
Sanders specifically rejected nationalising the health care system - his extended Medicare idea is single payer national insurance..... Which is pretty much un-mentionable in the UK.
AOC isn't talking about nationalising swathes of the economy. Her policies are centre-left Social Democrat in the European context.
This is why the whole "Socialist" thing in US politics is such tripe.
If the EU agree a deal making those clauses redundant then they can be removed as part of the deal.
If they don't then the clauses are necessary and it's up to the elected chamber to make the decision.
In what way necessary - given that implementing them breaks international treaties which will have consequences now all the world's leadership once again believes treaties shouldn't be ignored.
If there is an EU deal we can scrap those IMB provisions as part of the deal as redundant.
If there isn't then looking after ourselves will be more important than what other leaders think. Especially when those leaders are prepared to do the same when it suits them to do so.
OK, let's assume that this version of the IMB is needed and appropriate. Plenty disagree, but let's assume.
The government must know that the Lords can delay stuff for a year. So a government playing a tough but straight bat would introduce the IMB a bit more than twelve months before it is needed. But they didn't.
So either the government is clueless, or there's another game (heaven knows what) going on. Or both.
Did the Government have a majority in the Commons 12 months ago? I think you're mixing things up.
Furthermore no the Lords should not delay things for a year. They can, but then the Government can stuff the Lords or abolish it if need be too. The Lords should respect the supremacy of the elected chamber.
Not at all, my piratical friend.
31/13/20 is a deadline the government imposed on itself. A longer transition was on the table (as recently as this summer, I think). I understand why the government didn't take the opportunity (though I think they were foolish not to do so), but that choice has consequences. Remember also that the government could have leapt over the hurdle of the Lords by putting the details of this bill in their 2019 manifesto. If they really wanted this bill, their planning has been atrocious.
And I'd he careful about using "technically they can, but they shouldn't, because the consequences will be bad" as an argument. That's basically why a lot of people think this IMB is a serious mistake.
That's fine I understand that some think the IMB is a serious mistake - they can make that argument and it is for the elected chamber to decide. If we're not happy with what the elected chamber decides then another election is due no later than 2024.
Democracy: I'm a fan of it, are you?
Right, so we're back to "anyone who disagrees with Boris is against democracy". Normal service has resumed.
No absolutely not. If a majority of MPs vote against Boris then that is democracy.
Anyone who thinks the elected chamber shouldn't make the decisions is against democracy. Whether the elected chamber is making decisions I like or oppose I respect their right to make the decisions, because I know if they make a decision I dislike we can vote again next time.
And there are no limits to this doctrine? Not if Boris decides to sterilise the unfit, or put the races more susceptible to covid into concentration camps, say? Fine, because you can always vote him out in 2024?
Answer: yes, there are. Conforming to the rules of the democracy is just an entry level requirement, not a free pass. And why you think you can call yourself a libertarian when your favoured model of government is the complete surrender of liberty, in five-year tranches, is a puzzle.
Always with this slippery slop fallacy. The IMB is not putting people into concentration camps or sterilising the unfit. 🙄
As for why I as a libertarian support democracy the answer is because democracy is the most liberal form of government that exists. Yes democracy does mean surrendering some of our liberties for five years but the absence of democracy means surrendering them indefinitely.
At elections I will support liberal governments but if an illiberal one wins I would hope to defeat it next time with ballots not bullets.
So you accept that democracy means surrendering some of our liberties but that is absolutely fine because it is a consequence of us having the best available system of government.
Struggling to find an analogy here, Phil.
It means delegating them temporarily to people we choose then getting them back automatically to redelegate to whomever we choose again next time. Yes. The choice remains always ours and ours alone.
If you come up with an analogy please do let me know.
Temporarily until you then delegate it again so hence actually continuously.
And as to the choice - when exactly do you get the choice to end our democratic system of government? So no, you don't get a choice.
You are happy to sacrifice some element of sovereignty er, liberty for the greater good because you realise that the system wherein such small amount of liberty is sacrificed is superior to all others.
LOL
You're making contradictory circular arguments.
I don't want to end our democratic system of government, I support it.
Yes I am not an anarchist I have never said I am an ararchist. It is about balancing judgements. The balance in favour of democracy is overwhelming. The same does not apply to other issues.
So to clarify.
Membership of the EU which requires some amount of loss of, or pooled sovereignty for the greater good of an economic system = beyond the pale.
Democratic system of govt which requires some amount of loss of liberty for the greater good of a preferred system of government = all fine and dandy.
No.
Membership of the EU was never beyond the pale, I was a Remainer for most of my life and said I'd rather Remain than support Theresa May's deal.
So no, you have totally misunderstood everything I've ever written it seems because that is not what I am saying whatsoever. I am entirely OK with the UK pooling sovereignty with other nations if that is what the UK votes to do and so long as the UK can vote to end that in the future.
It could. And did. So that was the last of your objections to Brexit.
I don't object to Brexit.
Yes sorry. I meant the last of your objections to our membership of the EU was that we couldn't vote to end the arrangement which we of course did do so in fact it turns out that you had no objections to our membership of the EU.
Except that was never my objection. 🤦🏻♂️
I never said that, you are inventing that and fighting a straw man.
As I understand it you didn't like the loss of sovereignty.
What actually was it? The colour of the flag?
Then you haven't understood anything I've ever written, I was never against the EU on principle like that.
Prior to the referendum I thought it worth paying the price of pooling our sovereignty for economic advantages but I have long thought the EU is not an effective organisation and during the campaign became convinced that the UK could better manage its own sovereignty. That pooling was no longer worth it. That is a judgement, the UK I think will be economically better off treating the EU as our neighbours that we trade with instead of being a member of the EU. If I thought otherwise I might have voted Remain. I am not a die-hard extremist.
Theresa May's backstop was a worse breach of sovereignty for me than EU membership was which is why I vehemently opposed that.
How extraordinary. You thought it would, as is commonly accepted, be a good thing for a trade deal negotiation to have the express aim of making trade conditions worse than they were previously.
Blimey, I mean I get the sovereignty right or wrong argument (wrong, obvs, but...) but yours?
Absolutely bonkers.
The EU is not the whole world.
Since the EU is a badly managed, sclerotic and dysfunctional organisation I think having an FTA with the EU (ideally), freedom to negotiate FTAs with the 93% of the planet that is not in the EU and more control over our own decisions is more valuable than EU membership.
I just don't think the EU is that important as we move further into the 21st century. The EU is a 1950s solution for the past. Europe isn't the future and geography means ever less in our shrinking interconnected world.
You mean a 1950s solution to the problems of the 1930s...
Am I missing something here? That means even with the vaccine we have an covid infection rate of just over 240 per hundred 100,000? That doesnt sound like 90% effective to me unless they mean they deliberately then infected all 39k people to see how many would get it
Most of the infected were not vaccinated (it's a bit badly written)
The results look very strong indeed. More so than expected, as Pfizer decided not to have the planned interim look at 32 cases, so the statistical significance is high.
CNN: Safety data should be available from 3rd-4th week of November and Pfizer might apply for emergency use approval in the first week of December if that's positive.
Great news today. Glad it came after the election so its not tainted by politics (or tainting politics).
Just think if the Pfizer news had come out this time last week. Might have been Trump’s November surprise if it had gone differently.
I wonder if Pfizer sat on the analysis a bit... Vaccination program far more likely to be effective with Biden in charge so it is a material consideration in my book.
This is the key point. Any deal that we negotiate by ourselves will be less beneficial than the deal we get as a much larger trading block. The bigger you are the better the deal - a very simple reality.
This is so obviously true it's depressing you need to spell it out
For the block as a whole, not for the part.
In stock market terms, the EU is a sprawling conglomerate. The U.K. is going through a demerger - always messy but worth it in the long run
The other snag with the Pfizer vaccine is that it needs to be stored at extremely low temperatures, so the logistics will be quite challenging even in countries with good infrastructure.
But I think the encouraging thing is that the efficacy is right at the upper end of expectations. The earlier trials showed broadly similar results from most of the frontrunner vaccine candidates, so this is promising for all of them, including the Oxford vaccine.
I can't believe pfizer would put out the 90% number without checking it. They'll be chock full of phd mathematicians, chemists etc etc.
For the link I posted above: ...Gruber said that Pfizer and BioNTech had decided in late October that they wanted to drop the 32-case interim analysis. At that time, the companies decided to stop having their lab confirm cases of Covid-19 in the study, instead leaving samples in storage. The FDA was aware of this decision. Discussions between the agency and the companies concluded, and testing began this past Wednesday. When the samples were tested, there were 94 cases of Covid in the trial. The DSMB met on Sunday.
This means that the statistical strength of the result is likely far stronger than was initially expected. It also means that if Pfizer had held to the original plan, the data would likely have been available in October, as its CEO, Albert Bourla, had initially predicted.
Gruber said that there will not be another interim analysis conducted in the study. He also said that Pfizer’s estimate that it could file for authorization of the vaccine by the third week of November was based on the assumption that the FDA would be willing to accept two-month safety data on half the volunteers in the study as initially planned, when it was to include 30,000 volunteers, not more than 44,000, as is now the case. Those discussions are ongoing.
But Gruber said he now expects that by the time of the planned meeting of the FDA’s vaccine advisory committee in December, the study’s efficacy portion could be completed, having reached 164 cases of Covid-19.
He also emphasized that although there will only be a few months of data from this study, results from earlier studies make him optimistic that immunity from the vaccine will not wane rapidly.
The study has enrolled 43,538 volunteers the companies said, and 38,955 have received their second dose. About 42% of global participants and 30% of U.S. participants have racially and ethnically diverse backgrounds...
CNN: Safety data should be available from 3rd-4th week of November and Pfizer might apply for emergency use approval in the first week of December if that's positive.
Great news today. Glad it came after the election so its not tainted by politics (or tainting politics).
It would be helpful for international comparison purposes if the British Tories could switch their colour to red and Labour to blue.
Surely Tories to red and the LibDems to Blue. Labour and the Democrats aren't a valid comparison when you look at their policies.
Yes, the Democrats don’t really have a sister party here right now. Clearly Biden, Harris and all the Obama Dems likely to be in his admin don’t identify with Boris and Cummings. Equally though, Labour’s vision would definitely be seen as ‘radical leftist’ by Dems in the US, with the exception of those such as Bernie and AOC.
Strip out the issue of Brexit/the EU and Biden is very close to Boris on most international issues. So too though is Starmer actually.
Yeah, apparently Biden doesn’t see it like though re Boris:
Sounds like an excuse to me - world leaders work with people and countries they may find outright despicable and who have committed actual violent crimes, nevermind one who years ago said something racist. I don't doubt there may be genuine feeling against Boris, but it would only lead to significant effect if they also thought it was in american interests, which they would act towards regardless of if Boris had in fact worshipped Obama. To suggest otherwise would be to suggest Biden and co are unprofessional and pretty bad at their jobs, and I don't see the evidence of that. But Boris doesn't seem well placed for any favours, nor to strike up a casual bonhomie at least.
Yes, but it would probably be a fair guess that Biden hates Trump, and if he sees Johnson as a British Trump this is plenty enough reason to humiliate him. I think we could be about to see an all time low in UK-US relations until Bozo leaves office.
A cooling may occur, but that's about it I think. I think the first time they meet Boris would be able to impress upon Biden that he is not a British Trump. People will cry two face at that, but as is even accepted by many of us who dislike Boris, he is more complex a character than Trump and while I do not think they would ever be friendly, so long as the Irish situation gets a resolution I find it hard to believe Biden, a man praised for willing to work with others, would seriously hold a grudge against the British PM to the point of compromising relations between the countries, because he insulted his boss and friend years ago.
Kamala Harris insulted Joe Biden to his face and became his running mate.
Biden and Boris will work together for the same reason as every PM and President has in the modern era. Respect goes to the office not the individual.
Respect for individuals and offices is earned, or thrown away. Boris Johnson is very good at the latter.
No he's not, you've gone off the deep end in your dislike of him but Boris has successfully been able to charm and work with every foreign leader he's dealt with so far, including the Irish Taoiseach.
I see no reason why Biden will be the exception to the rule.
Ancestral dislike of the British empire might come in to it.
It would be helpful for international comparison purposes if the British Tories could switch their colour to red and Labour to blue.
Surely Tories to red and the LibDems to Blue. Labour and the Democrats aren't a valid comparison when you look at their policies.
Yes, the Democrats don’t really have a sister party here right now. Clearly Biden, Harris and all the Obama Dems likely to be in his admin don’t identify with Boris and Cummings. Equally though, Labour’s vision would definitely be seen as ‘radical leftist’ by Dems in the US, with the exception of those such as Bernie and AOC.
Strip out the issue of Brexit/the EU and Biden is very close to Boris on most international issues. So too though is Starmer actually.
Yeah, apparently Biden doesn’t see it like though re Boris:
Sounds like an excuse to me - world leaders work with people and countries they may find outright despicable and who have committed actual violent crimes, nevermind one who years ago said something racist. I don't doubt there may be genuine feeling against Boris, but it would only lead to significant effect if they also thought it was in american interests, which they would act towards regardless of if Boris had in fact worshipped Obama. To suggest otherwise would be to suggest Biden and co are unprofessional and pretty bad at their jobs, and I don't see the evidence of that. But Boris doesn't seem well placed for any favours, nor to strike up a casual bonhomie at least.
Yes, but it would probably be a fair guess that Biden hates Trump, and if he sees Johnson as a British Trump this is plenty enough reason to humiliate him. I think we could be about to see an all time low in UK-US relations until Bozo leaves office.
A cooling may occur, but that's about it I think. I think the first time they meet Boris would be able to impress upon Biden that he is not a British Trump. People will cry two face at that, but as is even accepted by many of us who dislike Boris, he is more complex a character than Trump and while I do not think they would ever be friendly, so long as the Irish situation gets a resolution I find it hard to believe Biden, a man praised for willing to work with others, would seriously hold a grudge against the British PM to the point of compromising relations between the countries, because he insulted his boss and friend years ago.
Kamala Harris insulted Joe Biden to his face and became his running mate.
Biden and Boris will work together for the same reason as every PM and President has in the modern era. Respect goes to the office not the individual.
Respect for individuals and offices is earned, or thrown away. Boris Johnson is very good at the latter.
No he's not, you've gone off the deep end in your dislike of him but Boris has successfully been able to charm and work with every foreign leader he's dealt with so far, including the Irish Taoiseach.
I see no reason why Biden will be the exception to the rule.
The other snag with the Pfizer vaccine is that it needs to be stored at extremely low temperatures, so the logistics will be quite challenging even in countries with good infrastructure.
But I think the encouraging thing is that the efficacy is right at the upper end of expectations. The earlier trials showed broadly similar results from most of the frontrunner vaccine candidates, so this is promising for all of them, including the Oxford vaccine.
Thankfully getting it distributed at first will be quite easily done rapidly from limited places. EG first to get it surely will be hospital front-line staff, care staff and care residents. Getting it to them should be logistically quite possible and will give a major boost to our defence against this nationally.
If smaller, nimble, agile really was better (it's not), then TVR would still be selling cars and Sainsbury's would be out of business
Hey! I was the dog's bollocks in my Chimaera.
I can hear it rusting over the Internet.
TVR - one of those British white elephants, like the Sinclair Spectrum.
The Spectrum was one of the most successful home computers of all time and pivotal for the massive UK software industry that we now have.
And, if I may, the TVR was about the only option if you were short of a ferrari and wanted some oomph. Plus they looked pretty.
I had prior to that been a TR4A IRS guy which is all fine and dandy and I hit 100mph in it often on the A303 but the TVR was something else.
That said, friend of a friend bought one (TVR) and killed himself by wrapping it round a tree on the way back from the dealer's.
A first gen S52 engined BMW Z3 of the same era was cheaper than a TVR and absolutely superior to it in every possible aspect.
Also a Porsche 968 vert was better than both of them.
Yes and my gf at the time had one of the former, and my company commander had had one of the latter.
But you didn't get that at any moment I am going to die feeling about them.
Plus going from a Triumph to a TVR seemed the right progression without getting involved in any of that foreign muck.
The market is sleeping on 968s at the moment. They are underrated and very good value. I have two or rather enough disparate parts from which two 968s could be theoretically assembled.
Did you ever track your Chimaera? I saw one simultaneously spin and blow its cooling system at Croft.
If the EU agree a deal making those clauses redundant then they can be removed as part of the deal.
If they don't then the clauses are necessary and it's up to the elected chamber to make the decision.
In what way necessary - given that implementing them breaks international treaties which will have consequences now all the world's leadership once again believes treaties shouldn't be ignored.
If there is an EU deal we can scrap those IMB provisions as part of the deal as redundant.
If there isn't then looking after ourselves will be more important than what other leaders think. Especially when those leaders are prepared to do the same when it suits them to do so.
OK, let's assume that this version of the IMB is needed and appropriate. Plenty disagree, but let's assume.
The government must know that the Lords can delay stuff for a year. So a government playing a tough but straight bat would introduce the IMB a bit more than twelve months before it is needed. But they didn't.
So either the government is clueless, or there's another game (heaven knows what) going on. Or both.
Did the Government have a majority in the Commons 12 months ago? I think you're mixing things up.
Furthermore no the Lords should not delay things for a year. They can, but then the Government can stuff the Lords or abolish it if need be too. The Lords should respect the supremacy of the elected chamber.
Not at all, my piratical friend.
31/13/20 is a deadline the government imposed on itself. A longer transition was on the table (as recently as this summer, I think). I understand why the government didn't take the opportunity (though I think they were foolish not to do so), but that choice has consequences. Remember also that the government could have leapt over the hurdle of the Lords by putting the details of this bill in their 2019 manifesto. If they really wanted this bill, their planning has been atrocious.
And I'd he careful about using "technically they can, but they shouldn't, because the consequences will be bad" as an argument. That's basically why a lot of people think this IMB is a serious mistake.
That's fine I understand that some think the IMB is a serious mistake - they can make that argument and it is for the elected chamber to decide. If we're not happy with what the elected chamber decides then another election is due no later than 2024.
Democracy: I'm a fan of it, are you?
Right, so we're back to "anyone who disagrees with Boris is against democracy". Normal service has resumed.
No absolutely not. If a majority of MPs vote against Boris then that is democracy.
Anyone who thinks the elected chamber shouldn't make the decisions is against democracy. Whether the elected chamber is making decisions I like or oppose I respect their right to make the decisions, because I know if they make a decision I dislike we can vote again next time.
And there are no limits to this doctrine? Not if Boris decides to sterilise the unfit, or put the races more susceptible to covid into concentration camps, say? Fine, because you can always vote him out in 2024?
Answer: yes, there are. Conforming to the rules of the democracy is just an entry level requirement, not a free pass. And why you think you can call yourself a libertarian when your favoured model of government is the complete surrender of liberty, in five-year tranches, is a puzzle.
Always with this slippery slop fallacy. The IMB is not putting people into concentration camps or sterilising the unfit. 🙄
As for why I as a libertarian support democracy the answer is because democracy is the most liberal form of government that exists. Yes democracy does mean surrendering some of our liberties for five years but the absence of democracy means surrendering them indefinitely.
At elections I will support liberal governments but if an illiberal one wins I would hope to defeat it next time with ballots not bullets.
So you accept that democracy means surrendering some of our liberties but that is absolutely fine because it is a consequence of us having the best available system of government.
Struggling to find an analogy here, Phil.
It means delegating them temporarily to people we choose then getting them back automatically to redelegate to whomever we choose again next time. Yes. The choice remains always ours and ours alone.
If you come up with an analogy please do let me know.
Temporarily until you then delegate it again so hence actually continuously.
And as to the choice - when exactly do you get the choice to end our democratic system of government? So no, you don't get a choice.
You are happy to sacrifice some element of sovereignty er, liberty for the greater good because you realise that the system wherein such small amount of liberty is sacrificed is superior to all others.
LOL
You're making contradictory circular arguments.
I don't want to end our democratic system of government, I support it.
Yes I am not an anarchist I have never said I am an ararchist. It is about balancing judgements. The balance in favour of democracy is overwhelming. The same does not apply to other issues.
So to clarify.
Membership of the EU which requires some amount of loss of, or pooled sovereignty for the greater good of an economic system = beyond the pale.
Democratic system of govt which requires some amount of loss of liberty for the greater good of a preferred system of government = all fine and dandy.
No.
Membership of the EU was never beyond the pale, I was a Remainer for most of my life and said I'd rather Remain than support Theresa May's deal.
So no, you have totally misunderstood everything I've ever written it seems because that is not what I am saying whatsoever. I am entirely OK with the UK pooling sovereignty with other nations if that is what the UK votes to do and so long as the UK can vote to end that in the future.
It could. And did. So that was the last of your objections to Brexit.
I don't object to Brexit.
Yes sorry. I meant the last of your objections to our membership of the EU was that we couldn't vote to end the arrangement which we of course did do so in fact it turns out that you had no objections to our membership of the EU.
Except that was never my objection. 🤦🏻♂️
I never said that, you are inventing that and fighting a straw man.
As I understand it you didn't like the loss of sovereignty.
What actually was it? The colour of the flag?
Then you haven't understood anything I've ever written, I was never against the EU on principle like that.
Prior to the referendum I thought it worth paying the price of pooling our sovereignty for economic advantages but I have long thought the EU is not an effective organisation and during the campaign became convinced that the UK could better manage its own sovereignty. That pooling was no longer worth it. That is a judgement, the UK I think will be economically better off treating the EU as our neighbours that we trade with instead of being a member of the EU. If I thought otherwise I might have voted Remain. I am not a die-hard extremist.
Theresa May's backstop was a worse breach of sovereignty for me than EU membership was which is why I vehemently opposed that.
How extraordinary. You thought it would, as is commonly accepted, be a good thing for a trade deal negotiation to have the express aim of making trade conditions worse than they were previously.
Blimey, I mean I get the sovereignty right or wrong argument (wrong, obvs, but...) but yours?
Absolutely bonkers.
The EU is not the whole world.
Since the EU is a badly managed, sclerotic and dysfunctional organisation I think having an FTA with the EU (ideally), freedom to negotiate FTAs with the 93% of the planet that is not in the EU and more control over our own decisions is more valuable than EU membership.
I just don't think the EU is that important as we move further into the 21st century. The EU is a 1950s solution for the past. Europe isn't the future and geography means ever less in our shrinking interconnected world.
You mean a 1950s solution to the problems of the 1930s...
I think you two Trumpians are a bit confused. Brexit is not a solution to anything, as any objective observer would see. It is, like Trump, a 1930s reaction to the realities of the modern age, delivered by those that were gullible enough to wish for a 1950 utopia that never existed.
It would be helpful for international comparison purposes if the British Tories could switch their colour to red and Labour to blue.
Surely Tories to red and the LibDems to Blue. Labour and the Democrats aren't a valid comparison when you look at their policies.
Yes, the Democrats don’t really have a sister party here right now. Clearly Biden, Harris and all the Obama Dems likely to be in his admin don’t identify with Boris and Cummings. Equally though, Labour’s vision would definitely be seen as ‘radical leftist’ by Dems in the US, with the exception of those such as Bernie and AOC.
The Democrats are basically a combination of Starmer Labour, Blarites, LDs and Remainer Tories now with a few exceptions as you say on the far left like Sanders and AOC who would be closer to Corbyn, the Republicans in their current Trumpite guise are basically only linked to the hardest of Brexiteers over here like Farage or IDS
Don't forget to bear in mind, as often, that what is far left in the US is not far left in the UK or Europe. Sanders' health plans are mainstream in Europe, for instance.
True but what is far right in the UK is not far right in the US either, Farage would be a mainstream Republican in the USA for instance.
Basically on the whole the Democrats tend to be the more centrist party in the USA and the Tories and the main centre right parties on the continent tend to be the more centrist parties in Europe eg Merkel's CDU
Biden - rejected the Medicare For All option Current UK government - Above inflation increases (just like every government since 1945) for the NHS
Biden - talked about some goals for climate change Current UK Government - Coal fired power stations closed and gone. Massive build out of renewables. Target date set for 100% ZE vehicles on the roads.
etc etc.
hard to think of a policy where Biden is to the left of the current UK government, in fact.
Sanders would actually be about where the UK government is. AOC has no policies as left as the Corbynites, that I can think of...
Absurd, Biden wants to increase taxes on the rich, the Tories under Cameron cut the top tax rate for the rich, Biden will increase spending and regulation, the Tories pursued austerity under Cameron and May, only easing under Boris. Biden is close to the unions, the Tories are the party of Thatcher who as with Reagan curtailed union strikes.
Biden is anti Brexit and will reverse Trump's immigration restrictions, Patel is ending EU free movement and bringing in a points system and talking about putting asylum seekers in an offshore island to process.
Biden is also signing back up to the Paris climate accords.
Sanders is diluted Corbynite, AOC is a Corbynite.
Biden is Starmer Labour and while Trump is clearly right of Boris, only Farage would be a Trumpite in the UK, Biden is left of the Tories
Biden is trying to increase taxes - to less than the average European level.
On environmental regulation, H&S regulation and many others, the US is a long way behind
On the Paris Accords - the UK is one of the countries *leading* the charge on this.
etc etc
Sanders specifically rejected nationalising the health care system - his extended Medicare idea is single payer national insurance..... Which is pretty much un-mentionable in the UK.
AOC isn't talking about nationalising swathes of the economy. Her policies are centre-left Social Democrat in the European context.
This is why the whole "Socialist" thing in US politics is such tripe.
It is all relative, the US will always be more right than Europe and the UK if not as right economically as say Singapore and the UK will always be right of the Nordic nations and Cuba, however it is the direction of travel that matters.
Biden is a tax raiser, the Tories are tax cutters, Biden is a big spender, the Tories pre Boris were tax cutters etc.
Yes the NHS is untouchable here, though IDS would like a more insurance based system and Fox has talked of a patients passport so again the Tories would like to shift more in a US style healthcare direction, even if not that far while the Democrats are more for increased state coverage of health.
AOC I agree is certainly closer to Labour than the Tories.
The USA is not a socialist nation and never has been, though there are a few socialists within the Democrats I don't disagree but that does not change the fact Biden is still left of the Tories in terms of the direction he wants to take his country even if probably still right of even Starmer Labour
It would be helpful for international comparison purposes if the British Tories could switch their colour to red and Labour to blue.
Surely Tories to red and the LibDems to Blue. Labour and the Democrats aren't a valid comparison when you look at their policies.
Yes, the Democrats don’t really have a sister party here right now. Clearly Biden, Harris and all the Obama Dems likely to be in his admin don’t identify with Boris and Cummings. Equally though, Labour’s vision would definitely be seen as ‘radical leftist’ by Dems in the US, with the exception of those such as Bernie and AOC.
Strip out the issue of Brexit/the EU and Biden is very close to Boris on most international issues. So too though is Starmer actually.
Yeah, apparently Biden doesn’t see it like though re Boris:
Sounds like an excuse to me - world leaders work with people and countries they may find outright despicable and who have committed actual violent crimes, nevermind one who years ago said something racist. I don't doubt there may be genuine feeling against Boris, but it would only lead to significant effect if they also thought it was in american interests, which they would act towards regardless of if Boris had in fact worshipped Obama. To suggest otherwise would be to suggest Biden and co are unprofessional and pretty bad at their jobs, and I don't see the evidence of that. But Boris doesn't seem well placed for any favours, nor to strike up a casual bonhomie at least.
Yes, but it would probably be a fair guess that Biden hates Trump, and if he sees Johnson as a British Trump this is plenty enough reason to humiliate him. I think we could be about to see an all time low in UK-US relations until Bozo leaves office.
A cooling may occur, but that's about it I think. I think the first time they meet Boris would be able to impress upon Biden that he is not a British Trump. People will cry two face at that, but as is even accepted by many of us who dislike Boris, he is more complex a character than Trump and while I do not think they would ever be friendly, so long as the Irish situation gets a resolution I find it hard to believe Biden, a man praised for willing to work with others, would seriously hold a grudge against the British PM to the point of compromising relations between the countries, because he insulted his boss and friend years ago.
Kamala Harris insulted Joe Biden to his face and became his running mate.
Biden and Boris will work together for the same reason as every PM and President has in the modern era. Respect goes to the office not the individual.
Respect for individuals and offices is earned, or thrown away. Boris Johnson is very good at the latter.
No he's not, you've gone off the deep end in your dislike of him but Boris has successfully been able to charm and work with every foreign leader he's dealt with so far, including the Irish Taoiseach.
I see no reason why Biden will be the exception to the rule.
Even when Mr J was FS?
FS is not PM. FS is a farcical role in the 21st century and has been since Blair was PM given that the PM decides our foreign relations.
It would be helpful for international comparison purposes if the British Tories could switch their colour to red and Labour to blue.
Surely Tories to red and the LibDems to Blue. Labour and the Democrats aren't a valid comparison when you look at their policies.
Yes, the Democrats don’t really have a sister party here right now. Clearly Biden, Harris and all the Obama Dems likely to be in his admin don’t identify with Boris and Cummings. Equally though, Labour’s vision would definitely be seen as ‘radical leftist’ by Dems in the US, with the exception of those such as Bernie and AOC.
Strip out the issue of Brexit/the EU and Biden is very close to Boris on most international issues. So too though is Starmer actually.
Yeah, apparently Biden doesn’t see it like though re Boris:
Sounds like an excuse to me - world leaders work with people and countries they may find outright despicable and who have committed actual violent crimes, nevermind one who years ago said something racist. I don't doubt there may be genuine feeling against Boris, but it would only lead to significant effect if they also thought it was in american interests, which they would act towards regardless of if Boris had in fact worshipped Obama. To suggest otherwise would be to suggest Biden and co are unprofessional and pretty bad at their jobs, and I don't see the evidence of that. But Boris doesn't seem well placed for any favours, nor to strike up a casual bonhomie at least.
Yes, but it would probably be a fair guess that Biden hates Trump, and if he sees Johnson as a British Trump this is plenty enough reason to humiliate him. I think we could be about to see an all time low in UK-US relations until Bozo leaves office.
A cooling may occur, but that's about it I think. I think the first time they meet Boris would be able to impress upon Biden that he is not a British Trump. People will cry two face at that, but as is even accepted by many of us who dislike Boris, he is more complex a character than Trump and while I do not think they would ever be friendly, so long as the Irish situation gets a resolution I find it hard to believe Biden, a man praised for willing to work with others, would seriously hold a grudge against the British PM to the point of compromising relations between the countries, because he insulted his boss and friend years ago.
Kamala Harris insulted Joe Biden to his face and became his running mate.
Biden and Boris will work together for the same reason as every PM and President has in the modern era. Respect goes to the office not the individual.
Respect for individuals and offices is earned, or thrown away. Boris Johnson is very good at the latter.
No he's not, you've gone off the deep end in your dislike of him but Boris has successfully been able to charm and work with every foreign leader he's dealt with so far, including the Irish Taoiseach.
I see no reason why Biden will be the exception to the rule.
Ancestral dislike of the British empire might come in to it.
No. No it won't.
Only in the imaginations of fevered Remainers who are willing along Boris to fail.
If the EU agree a deal making those clauses redundant then they can be removed as part of the deal.
If they don't then the clauses are necessary and it's up to the elected chamber to make the decision.
In what way necessary - given that implementing them breaks international treaties which will have consequences now all the world's leadership once again believes treaties shouldn't be ignored.
If there is an EU deal we can scrap those IMB provisions as part of the deal as redundant.
If there isn't then looking after ourselves will be more important than what other leaders think. Especially when those leaders are prepared to do the same when it suits them to do so.
OK, let's assume that this version of the IMB is needed and appropriate. Plenty disagree, but let's assume.
The government must know that the Lords can delay stuff for a year. So a government playing a tough but straight bat would introduce the IMB a bit more than twelve months before it is needed. But they didn't.
So either the government is clueless, or there's another game (heaven knows what) going on. Or both.
Did the Government have a majority in the Commons 12 months ago? I think you're mixing things up.
Furthermore no the Lords should not delay things for a year. They can, but then the Government can stuff the Lords or abolish it if need be too. The Lords should respect the supremacy of the elected chamber.
Not at all, my piratical friend.
31/13/20 is a deadline the government imposed on itself. A longer transition was on the table (as recently as this summer, I think). I understand why the government didn't take the opportunity (though I think they were foolish not to do so), but that choice has consequences. Remember also that the government could have leapt over the hurdle of the Lords by putting the details of this bill in their 2019 manifesto. If they really wanted this bill, their planning has been atrocious.
And I'd he careful about using "technically they can, but they shouldn't, because the consequences will be bad" as an argument. That's basically why a lot of people think this IMB is a serious mistake.
That's fine I understand that some think the IMB is a serious mistake - they can make that argument and it is for the elected chamber to decide. If we're not happy with what the elected chamber decides then another election is due no later than 2024.
Democracy: I'm a fan of it, are you?
Right, so we're back to "anyone who disagrees with Boris is against democracy". Normal service has resumed.
No absolutely not. If a majority of MPs vote against Boris then that is democracy.
Anyone who thinks the elected chamber shouldn't make the decisions is against democracy. Whether the elected chamber is making decisions I like or oppose I respect their right to make the decisions, because I know if they make a decision I dislike we can vote again next time.
And there are no limits to this doctrine? Not if Boris decides to sterilise the unfit, or put the races more susceptible to covid into concentration camps, say? Fine, because you can always vote him out in 2024?
Answer: yes, there are. Conforming to the rules of the democracy is just an entry level requirement, not a free pass. And why you think you can call yourself a libertarian when your favoured model of government is the complete surrender of liberty, in five-year tranches, is a puzzle.
Always with this slippery slop fallacy. The IMB is not putting people into concentration camps or sterilising the unfit. 🙄
As for why I as a libertarian support democracy the answer is because democracy is the most liberal form of government that exists. Yes democracy does mean surrendering some of our liberties for five years but the absence of democracy means surrendering them indefinitely.
At elections I will support liberal governments but if an illiberal one wins I would hope to defeat it next time with ballots not bullets.
So you accept that democracy means surrendering some of our liberties but that is absolutely fine because it is a consequence of us having the best available system of government.
Struggling to find an analogy here, Phil.
It means delegating them temporarily to people we choose then getting them back automatically to redelegate to whomever we choose again next time. Yes. The choice remains always ours and ours alone.
If you come up with an analogy please do let me know.
Temporarily until you then delegate it again so hence actually continuously.
And as to the choice - when exactly do you get the choice to end our democratic system of government? So no, you don't get a choice.
You are happy to sacrifice some element of sovereignty er, liberty for the greater good because you realise that the system wherein such small amount of liberty is sacrificed is superior to all others.
LOL
You're making contradictory circular arguments.
I don't want to end our democratic system of government, I support it.
Yes I am not an anarchist I have never said I am an ararchist. It is about balancing judgements. The balance in favour of democracy is overwhelming. The same does not apply to other issues.
So to clarify.
Membership of the EU which requires some amount of loss of, or pooled sovereignty for the greater good of an economic system = beyond the pale.
Democratic system of govt which requires some amount of loss of liberty for the greater good of a preferred system of government = all fine and dandy.
No.
Membership of the EU was never beyond the pale, I was a Remainer for most of my life and said I'd rather Remain than support Theresa May's deal.
So no, you have totally misunderstood everything I've ever written it seems because that is not what I am saying whatsoever. I am entirely OK with the UK pooling sovereignty with other nations if that is what the UK votes to do and so long as the UK can vote to end that in the future.
It could. And did. So that was the last of your objections to Brexit.
I don't object to Brexit.
Yes sorry. I meant the last of your objections to our membership of the EU was that we couldn't vote to end the arrangement which we of course did do so in fact it turns out that you had no objections to our membership of the EU.
Except that was never my objection. 🤦🏻♂️
I never said that, you are inventing that and fighting a straw man.
As I understand it you didn't like the loss of sovereignty.
What actually was it? The colour of the flag?
Then you haven't understood anything I've ever written, I was never against the EU on principle like that.
Prior to the referendum I thought it worth paying the price of pooling our sovereignty for economic advantages but I have long thought the EU is not an effective organisation and during the campaign became convinced that the UK could better manage its own sovereignty. That pooling was no longer worth it. That is a judgement, the UK I think will be economically better off treating the EU as our neighbours that we trade with instead of being a member of the EU. If I thought otherwise I might have voted Remain. I am not a die-hard extremist.
Theresa May's backstop was a worse breach of sovereignty for me than EU membership was which is why I vehemently opposed that.
How extraordinary. You thought it would, as is commonly accepted, be a good thing for a trade deal negotiation to have the express aim of making trade conditions worse than they were previously.
Blimey, I mean I get the sovereignty right or wrong argument (wrong, obvs, but...) but yours?
Absolutely bonkers.
Genuine question - is there a single example that you can think of, of a country that, after a split/independence from empire etc has benefitted economically, in the short to medium term? I can't think of one.
Taiwan ?
Taiwan still calls itself RoC... they haven’t split but part of their country has been occupied by rebels
It would be helpful for international comparison purposes if the British Tories could switch their colour to red and Labour to blue.
Surely Tories to red and the LibDems to Blue. Labour and the Democrats aren't a valid comparison when you look at their policies.
Yes, the Democrats don’t really have a sister party here right now. Clearly Biden, Harris and all the Obama Dems likely to be in his admin don’t identify with Boris and Cummings. Equally though, Labour’s vision would definitely be seen as ‘radical leftist’ by Dems in the US, with the exception of those such as Bernie and AOC.
Strip out the issue of Brexit/the EU and Biden is very close to Boris on most international issues. So too though is Starmer actually.
Yeah, apparently Biden doesn’t see it like though re Boris:
Sounds like an excuse to me - world leaders work with people and countries they may find outright despicable and who have committed actual violent crimes, nevermind one who years ago said something racist. I don't doubt there may be genuine feeling against Boris, but it would only lead to significant effect if they also thought it was in american interests, which they would act towards regardless of if Boris had in fact worshipped Obama. To suggest otherwise would be to suggest Biden and co are unprofessional and pretty bad at their jobs, and I don't see the evidence of that. But Boris doesn't seem well placed for any favours, nor to strike up a casual bonhomie at least.
Yes, but it would probably be a fair guess that Biden hates Trump, and if he sees Johnson as a British Trump this is plenty enough reason to humiliate him. I think we could be about to see an all time low in UK-US relations until Bozo leaves office.
A cooling may occur, but that's about it I think. I think the first time they meet Boris would be able to impress upon Biden that he is not a British Trump. People will cry two face at that, but as is even accepted by many of us who dislike Boris, he is more complex a character than Trump and while I do not think they would ever be friendly, so long as the Irish situation gets a resolution I find it hard to believe Biden, a man praised for willing to work with others, would seriously hold a grudge against the British PM to the point of compromising relations between the countries, because he insulted his boss and friend years ago.
Kamala Harris insulted Joe Biden to his face and became his running mate.
Biden and Boris will work together for the same reason as every PM and President has in the modern era. Respect goes to the office not the individual.
Respect for individuals and offices is earned, or thrown away. Boris Johnson is very good at the latter.
No he's not, you've gone off the deep end in your dislike of him but Boris has successfully been able to charm and work with every foreign leader he's dealt with so far, including the Irish Taoiseach.
I see no reason why Biden will be the exception to the rule.
Even when Mr J was FS?
FS is not PM. FS is a farcical role in the 21st century and has been since Blair was PM given that the PM decides our foreign relations.
Yet that has some pretty severe counterexamples to your thesis which don't inspire confidence in Mr J.
The U.K. is going through a demerger - always messy but worth it in the long run
Not always worth it
One potential issue is that a demerger can reduce the benefits of economies of scale, when a larger company can produce goods at a cheaper rate than a smaller one.
As a demerger inevitably involves the original company becoming two or more smaller ones, this advantage can be lost, and management is usually less inclined to inform shareholders of the potential loss of synergy before demerging.
The newly divided company can also find itself subject to less favourable borrowing costs if lenders and rating agencies decide its model is riskier after having offloaded a certain business segment.
We are subject to all 3
We lose the economies of scale, already discussed.
CNN: Safety data should be available from 3rd-4th week of November and Pfizer might apply for emergency use approval in the first week of December if that's positive.
Great news today. Glad it came after the election so its not tainted by politics (or tainting politics).
How extraordinary. You thought it would, as is commonly accepted, be a good thing for a trade deal negotiation to have the express aim of making trade conditions worse than they were previously.
Blimey, I mean I get the sovereignty right or wrong argument (wrong, obvs, but...) but yours?
Absolutely bonkers.
This is the key point. Any deal that we negotiate by ourselves will be less beneficial than the deal we get as a much larger trading block. The bigger you are the better the deal - a very simple reality.
Disagreed completely.
Small and agile > large, sclerotic and unwieldy.
Negotiate many deals do you? OK I only negotiate 8 figure deals rather than into the gazillions but I have had a conversation with someone who does negotiate deals at EU and UN level and its the same principle.
The UK by itself is a smaller lower value market than the EU. If we want to negotiate *different* deals to the one we are walking away with they aren't going to give us better terms than they give them. OK so we flip rule x for rule y on a given issue. Overall value? Worse. Because we are smaller. Volume always brings discount. Reducing volume brings increased cost - and not just on tariffs and trade.
Lets take actual trade where at the moment stuff is imported into the EU all at the same standard on the same deal. We are going to impose different standards which adds cost even before the stuff leaves the factory. We're then either going to demand direct import for our little volume which adds cost or different handling / processing / tariffs to bring the stuff across from Zeebrugge.
However you cut it, stuff will be more expensive. Because we are going to create unique standards and conditions.
If we aren't then its back to Life of Brian, you're demanding the right to have babies even though you don't have a box for the foetus to gestate in.
However a smaller reduction in tariffs on Scotch is worth more to the U.K. than a larger reduction in tariffs onMozzarella
If the EU agree a deal making those clauses redundant then they can be removed as part of the deal.
If they don't then the clauses are necessary and it's up to the elected chamber to make the decision.
In what way necessary - given that implementing them breaks international treaties which will have consequences now all the world's leadership once again believes treaties shouldn't be ignored.
If there is an EU deal we can scrap those IMB provisions as part of the deal as redundant.
If there isn't then looking after ourselves will be more important than what other leaders think. Especially when those leaders are prepared to do the same when it suits them to do so.
OK, let's assume that this version of the IMB is needed and appropriate. Plenty disagree, but let's assume.
The government must know that the Lords can delay stuff for a year. So a government playing a tough but straight bat would introduce the IMB a bit more than twelve months before it is needed. But they didn't.
So either the government is clueless, or there's another game (heaven knows what) going on. Or both.
Did the Government have a majority in the Commons 12 months ago? I think you're mixing things up.
Furthermore no the Lords should not delay things for a year. They can, but then the Government can stuff the Lords or abolish it if need be too. The Lords should respect the supremacy of the elected chamber.
Not at all, my piratical friend.
31/13/20 is a deadline the government imposed on itself. A longer transition was on the table (as recently as this summer, I think). I understand why the government didn't take the opportunity (though I think they were foolish not to do so), but that choice has consequences. Remember also that the government could have leapt over the hurdle of the Lords by putting the details of this bill in their 2019 manifesto. If they really wanted this bill, their planning has been atrocious.
And I'd he careful about using "technically they can, but they shouldn't, because the consequences will be bad" as an argument. That's basically why a lot of people think this IMB is a serious mistake.
That's fine I understand that some think the IMB is a serious mistake - they can make that argument and it is for the elected chamber to decide. If we're not happy with what the elected chamber decides then another election is due no later than 2024.
Democracy: I'm a fan of it, are you?
Right, so we're back to "anyone who disagrees with Boris is against democracy". Normal service has resumed.
No absolutely not. If a majority of MPs vote against Boris then that is democracy.
Anyone who thinks the elected chamber shouldn't make the decisions is against democracy. Whether the elected chamber is making decisions I like or oppose I respect their right to make the decisions, because I know if they make a decision I dislike we can vote again next time.
And there are no limits to this doctrine? Not if Boris decides to sterilise the unfit, or put the races more susceptible to covid into concentration camps, say? Fine, because you can always vote him out in 2024?
Answer: yes, there are. Conforming to the rules of the democracy is just an entry level requirement, not a free pass. And why you think you can call yourself a libertarian when your favoured model of government is the complete surrender of liberty, in five-year tranches, is a puzzle.
Always with this slippery slop fallacy. The IMB is not putting people into concentration camps or sterilising the unfit. 🙄
As for why I as a libertarian support democracy the answer is because democracy is the most liberal form of government that exists. Yes democracy does mean surrendering some of our liberties for five years but the absence of democracy means surrendering them indefinitely.
At elections I will support liberal governments but if an illiberal one wins I would hope to defeat it next time with ballots not bullets.
So you accept that democracy means surrendering some of our liberties but that is absolutely fine because it is a consequence of us having the best available system of government.
Struggling to find an analogy here, Phil.
It means delegating them temporarily to people we choose then getting them back automatically to redelegate to whomever we choose again next time. Yes. The choice remains always ours and ours alone.
If you come up with an analogy please do let me know.
Temporarily until you then delegate it again so hence actually continuously.
And as to the choice - when exactly do you get the choice to end our democratic system of government? So no, you don't get a choice.
You are happy to sacrifice some element of sovereignty er, liberty for the greater good because you realise that the system wherein such small amount of liberty is sacrificed is superior to all others.
LOL
You're making contradictory circular arguments.
I don't want to end our democratic system of government, I support it.
Yes I am not an anarchist I have never said I am an ararchist. It is about balancing judgements. The balance in favour of democracy is overwhelming. The same does not apply to other issues.
So to clarify.
Membership of the EU which requires some amount of loss of, or pooled sovereignty for the greater good of an economic system = beyond the pale.
Democratic system of govt which requires some amount of loss of liberty for the greater good of a preferred system of government = all fine and dandy.
No.
Membership of the EU was never beyond the pale, I was a Remainer for most of my life and said I'd rather Remain than support Theresa May's deal.
So no, you have totally misunderstood everything I've ever written it seems because that is not what I am saying whatsoever. I am entirely OK with the UK pooling sovereignty with other nations if that is what the UK votes to do and so long as the UK can vote to end that in the future.
It could. And did. So that was the last of your objections to Brexit.
I don't object to Brexit.
Yes sorry. I meant the last of your objections to our membership of the EU was that we couldn't vote to end the arrangement which we of course did do so in fact it turns out that you had no objections to our membership of the EU.
Except that was never my objection. 🤦🏻♂️
I never said that, you are inventing that and fighting a straw man.
As I understand it you didn't like the loss of sovereignty.
What actually was it? The colour of the flag?
Then you haven't understood anything I've ever written, I was never against the EU on principle like that.
Prior to the referendum I thought it worth paying the price of pooling our sovereignty for economic advantages but I have long thought the EU is not an effective organisation and during the campaign became convinced that the UK could better manage its own sovereignty. That pooling was no longer worth it. That is a judgement, the UK I think will be economically better off treating the EU as our neighbours that we trade with instead of being a member of the EU. If I thought otherwise I might have voted Remain. I am not a die-hard extremist.
Theresa May's backstop was a worse breach of sovereignty for me than EU membership was which is why I vehemently opposed that.
How extraordinary. You thought it would, as is commonly accepted, be a good thing for a trade deal negotiation to have the express aim of making trade conditions worse than they were previously.
Blimey, I mean I get the sovereignty right or wrong argument (wrong, obvs, but...) but yours?
Absolutely bonkers.
Genuine question - is there a single example that you can think of, of a country that, after a split/independence from empire etc has benefitted economically, in the short to medium term? I can't think of one.
Taiwan ?
Taiwan still calls itself RoC... they haven’t split but part of their country has been occupied by rebels
True, though while democracy across the whole of China would be a tremendous step forwards it wouldn't exactly play well for the Taiwan leadership.
That's it. Great news. The crisis is over - apocalypse averted. Many will still fall sick and die but the big picture is transformed. Lockdown Lite in place, on and off, for another few months, then a gradual return to life as we knew it BC.
Trump gone. Covid going. What a time to be alive. It's a new dawn, it's a new day, it's a new life.
Pfizer believes it will be able to supply 50 million doses by the end of this year and around 1.3 billion by the end of 2021.
Unless Oxford and others also have a working vaccine, life isn't going to return to normal in 2021. The UK didn't order anywhere near enough for the whole population if I remember.
If smaller, nimble, agile really was better (it's not), then TVR would still be selling cars and Sainsbury's would be out of business
Hey! I was the dog's bollocks in my Chimaera.
I can hear it rusting over the Internet.
TVR - one of those British white elephants, like the Sinclair Spectrum.
The Spectrum was one of the most successful home computers of all time and pivotal for the massive UK software industry that we now have.
And, if I may, the TVR was about the only option if you were short of a ferrari and wanted some oomph. Plus they looked pretty.
I had prior to that been a TR4A IRS guy which is all fine and dandy and I hit 100mph in it often on the A303 but the TVR was something else.
That said, friend of a friend bought one (TVR) and killed himself by wrapping it round a tree on the way back from the dealer's.
A first gen S52 engined BMW Z3 of the same era was cheaper than a TVR and absolutely superior to it in every possible aspect.
Also a Porsche 968 vert was better than both of them.
Yes and my gf at the time had one of the former, and my company commander had had one of the latter.
But you didn't get that at any moment I am going to die feeling about them.
Plus going from a Triumph to a TVR seemed the right progression without getting involved in any of that foreign muck.
The market is sleeping on 968s at the moment. They are underrated and very good value. I have two or rather enough disparate parts from which two 968s could be theoretically assembled.
Did you ever track your Chimaera? I saw one simultaneously spin and blow its cooling system at Croft.
No - I only just trusted it to go in a straight line at a steady speed without blowing something or other. I was a danger on the roads on long journeys as my eyes were glued to the temp gauge.
The thought of doing anything on a track with it was unthinkable.
That's it. Great news. The crisis is over - apocalypse averted. Many will still fall sick and die but the big picture is transformed. Lockdown Lite in place, on and off, for another few months, then a gradual return to life as we knew it BC.
Trump gone. Covid going. What a time to be alive. It's a new dawn, it's a new day, it's a new life.
And I'm having a banana.
Hold your horses....minky mutant covid might well not be covered by this vaccine. If the Danes have been too slow, it might well be out there and spreading.
The other piece of probable good news is that, if the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine works well, it's likely that some of the other candidate vaccines will as well.
Genuinely quite surprised he didn’t follow that up with an accusation re timing, or a suggestion that Pfizer were putting up cardboard in windows in Michigan, or the like...
Pfizer believes it will be able to supply 50 million doses by the end of this year and around 1.3 billion by the end of 2021.
Unless Oxford and others also have a working vaccine, life isn't going to return to normal in 2021.
Cant others manufacture under license to boost the numbers? I recall @rcs1000 saying that the Pfizer vaccine was the easiest to manufacture and distribute.
Just think if the Pfizer news had come out this time last week. Might have been Trump’s November surprise if it had gone differently.
I wonder if Pfizer sat on the analysis a bit... Vaccination program far more likely to be effective with Biden in charge so it is a material consideration in my book.
Well they did change their review plans - but those had been criticised by many people for having an interim review too early. By waiting, they have produced what seem to be statistically very strong results earlier than expected. And in any event they will have to wait for the two month safety data.
Worth pointing out that Pfizer were not part of operation 'Warp Speed', and financed this from their own resources. So the decisions were theirs to make.
Genuinely quite surprised he didn’t follow that up with an accusation re timing, or a suggestion that Pfizer were putting up cardboard in windows in Michigan, or the like...
Regarding what's needed to get back to normal, of course some people are behaving normally already, so it's a sliding scale. But I'm sure a large part of the population, including very many not in the highest risk quartile, are not going to be reassured just because ICU capacity can cope. They will need to see infection numbers really coming down. If the highest-risk quarter of the population were vaccinated and everyone went back to normal, infection numbers would rocket and many people would die. And actually I very much doubt the NHS could cope.
CNN: Safety data should be available from 3rd-4th week of November and Pfizer might apply for emergency use approval in the first week of December if that's positive.
Great news today. Glad it came after the election so its not tainted by politics (or tainting politics).
Cue the conspiracy theorists claiming Big Pharma deliberately delayed the announcement to avoid helping Trump*
*There might actually be a whisker of truth in this one.
The U.K. is going through a demerger - always messy but worth it in the long run
Not always worth it
One potential issue is that a demerger can reduce the benefits of economies of scale, when a larger company can produce goods at a cheaper rate than a smaller one.
As a demerger inevitably involves the original company becoming two or more smaller ones, this advantage can be lost, and management is usually less inclined to inform shareholders of the potential loss of synergy before demerging.
The newly divided company can also find itself subject to less favourable borrowing costs if lenders and rating agencies decide its model is riskier after having offloaded a certain business segment.
We are subject to all 3
We lose the economies of scale, already discussed.
We lose management oversight.
Our costs go up.
Apart from that...
The so called economies of scale are inconsequential since the EU is too sclerotic, divided, weak and impotent to take advantage of them.
We gain more oversight since we directly control our own Parliament, whereas we didn't the EU.
Our costs go down since we were subsidising the EU.
The other piece of probable good news is that, if the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine works well, it's likely that some of the other candidate vaccines will as well.
Yes, the AZ vaccine would be good for us as we have so many in manufacturing.
The other snag with the Pfizer vaccine is that it needs to be stored at extremely low temperatures, so the logistics will be quite challenging even in countries with good infrastructure.
But I think the encouraging thing is that the efficacy is right at the upper end of expectations. The earlier trials showed broadly similar results from most of the frontrunner vaccine candidates, so this is promising for all of them, including the Oxford vaccine.
Someone mentioned the other day that the UK government has purchased a very large number of medical freezers....
If smaller, nimble, agile really was better (it's not), then TVR would still be selling cars and Sainsbury's would be out of business
Hey! I was the dog's bollocks in my Chimaera.
I can hear it rusting over the Internet.
TVR - one of those British white elephants, like the Sinclair Spectrum.
The Sinclair computers introduced computing and program writing to an enormous number of young people.
These things are all true, but relative to what Britain should have achieved in this field, I think it's hugely underperformed. To me these innovations are symbols of what could have been.
The other piece of probable good news is that, if the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine works well, it's likely that some of the other candidate vaccines will as well.
Just think if the Pfizer news had come out this time last week. Might have been Trump’s November surprise if it had gone differently.
I wonder if Pfizer sat on the analysis a bit... Vaccination program far more likely to be effective with Biden in charge so it is a material consideration in my book.
To be fair to Pfizer, if they have sat on it, I think they would have got absolutely mullered if they had released the data the same time last week.
Trump's reaction is interesting. Given the timing, it's not hard to imagine him going off on one that it was deliberately held back to help Biden and fuelling further conspiracy theories about the election. He hasn't.
Pfizer believes it will be able to supply 50 million doses by the end of this year and around 1.3 billion by the end of 2021.
Unless Oxford and others also have a working vaccine, life isn't going to return to normal in 2021. The UK didn't order anywhere near enough for the whole population if I remember.
Even an announcement of a UK vaccine programme will mean life will return to normal for most people, IMO.
That's it. Great news. The crisis is over - apocalypse averted. Many will still fall sick and die but the big picture is transformed. Lockdown Lite in place, on and off, for another few months, then a gradual return to life as we knew it BC.
Trump gone. Covid going. What a time to be alive. It's a new dawn, it's a new day, it's a new life.
And I'm having a banana.
Hold your horses....minky mutant covid might well not be covered by this vaccine. If the Danes have been too slow, it might well be out there and spreading.
And there's recounts etc on Trump too. But no, not worried, I'm feeling extremely positive about things all of a sudden. The inevitable close alignment Brexit deal coming soon too.
Comments
But then recall that the UK has ordered enough of the Pfizer vaccine for only 20% of the population ...
The risks of ICUs overflowing is due to the risks to 20% of the population.
It’s unpleasant, sectarian and should be discouraged. But not inherently racist.
I learnt to program on them, so I know of what I speak.
The perfect illustration - the original ZX81 had an insane keyboard - completely impossible to type on. All the connections wobbled, so the computer could crash at any moment. A company (I forget the name) built a nice metal case, with a real keyboard. You simply transferred the guts of the ZX-81 into it. No trailing cables (power supply, nicely ventilated was inside), no flakey connections. A massive, massive improvement.
SInclair threatened to sue them - for something....
In the end, Sinclair died from trying to flog the same, barely viable products, when the world had moved on.
Interestingly, it was only after Amstrad and the Pound Shop Donald Trump took over, that they produced a computer with a keyboard you could type on.....
I take the point that Biden and Johnson don't appear likely to have very compatible personalities. But that's to be seen - there have been some distinctively odd couples in the history of foreign relations.
Biden and Boris will work together for the same reason as every PM and President has in the modern era. Respect goes to the office not the individual.
The Americans are ahead of the game when it comes to gender-neutral job titles.
Except for 'First Lady'. 'First Person' doesn't sound right.
Also a Porsche 968 vert was better than both of them.
Sinclair - mass market computing pioneers with a crap product that was easy to use when it worked. Flogged to Amstrad
Acorn - evolved into one of the biggest chip companies in the world
Amstrad - the only one of the three who broke out of gaming into business. Fucked over by Seagate.
Don't know if it needs 2 doses per person though? If it does that's 15 million people so just over a quarter of the population.
But given most of the ICU demand comes from a limited slice of the population, vaccinating them would make a tremendous difference.
I see no reason why Biden will be the exception to the rule.
But you didn't get that at any moment I am going to die feeling about them.
Plus going from a Triumph to a TVR seemed the right progression without getting involved in any of that foreign muck.
Red is the colour of the Left - its how Aunt Augusta in Travels with My Aunt remembers which is port & which is starboard "Port wine is Red and Red is Left"!
Only Thatcherite, pro hard Brexit Tories and Farage supporters and the DUP over here would be Republicans, certainly in the GOP's current form
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sideshow_Bob_Roberts
On environmental regulation, H&S regulation and many others, the US is a long way behind
On the Paris Accords - the UK is one of the countries *leading* the charge on this.
etc etc
Sanders specifically rejected nationalising the health care system - his extended Medicare idea is single payer national insurance..... Which is pretty much un-mentionable in the UK.
AOC isn't talking about nationalising swathes of the economy. Her policies are centre-left Social Democrat in the European context.
This is why the whole "Socialist" thing in US politics is such tripe.
https://www.statnews.com/2020/11/09/covid-19-vaccine-from-pfizer-and-biontech-is-strongly-effective-early-data-from-large-trial-indicate/
The results look very strong indeed.
More so than expected, as Pfizer decided not to have the planned interim look at 32 cases, so the statistical significance is high.
Great news today. Glad it came after the election so its not tainted by politics (or tainting politics).
Vaccination program far more likely to be effective with Biden in charge so it is a material consideration in my book.
In stock market terms, the EU is a sprawling conglomerate. The U.K. is going through a demerger - always messy but worth it in the long run
But I think the encouraging thing is that the efficacy is right at the upper end of expectations. The earlier trials showed broadly similar results from most of the frontrunner vaccine candidates, so this is promising for all of them, including the Oxford vaccine.
...Gruber said that Pfizer and BioNTech had decided in late October that they wanted to drop the 32-case interim analysis. At that time, the companies decided to stop having their lab confirm cases of Covid-19 in the study, instead leaving samples in storage. The FDA was aware of this decision. Discussions between the agency and the companies concluded, and testing began this past Wednesday. When the samples were tested, there were 94 cases of Covid in the trial. The DSMB met on Sunday.
This means that the statistical strength of the result is likely far stronger than was initially expected. It also means that if Pfizer had held to the original plan, the data would likely have been available in October, as its CEO, Albert Bourla, had initially predicted.
Gruber said that there will not be another interim analysis conducted in the study. He also said that Pfizer’s estimate that it could file for authorization of the vaccine by the third week of November was based on the assumption that the FDA would be willing to accept two-month safety data on half the volunteers in the study as initially planned, when it was to include 30,000 volunteers, not more than 44,000, as is now the case. Those discussions are ongoing.
But Gruber said he now expects that by the time of the planned meeting of the FDA’s vaccine advisory committee in December, the study’s efficacy portion could be completed, having reached 164 cases of Covid-19.
He also emphasized that although there will only be a few months of data from this study, results from earlier studies make him optimistic that immunity from the vaccine will not wane rapidly.
The study has enrolled 43,538 volunteers the companies said, and 38,955 have received their second dose. About 42% of global participants and 30% of U.S. participants have racially and ethnically diverse backgrounds...
With decent investment and management, they could have improved their product. But they went down the road of putting fresh lipstick on the pig....
Did you ever track your Chimaera? I saw one simultaneously spin and blow its cooling system at Croft.
Biden is a tax raiser, the Tories are tax cutters, Biden is a big spender, the Tories pre Boris were tax cutters etc.
Yes the NHS is untouchable here, though IDS would like a more insurance based system and Fox has talked of a patients passport so again the Tories would like to shift more in a US style healthcare direction, even if not that far while the Democrats are more for increased state coverage of health.
AOC I agree is certainly closer to Labour than the Tories.
The USA is not a socialist nation and never has been, though there are a few socialists within the Democrats I don't disagree but that does not change the fact Biden is still left of the Tories in terms of the direction he wants to take his country even if probably still right of even Starmer Labour
Only in the imaginations of fevered Remainers who are willing along Boris to fail.
One potential issue is that a demerger can reduce the benefits of economies of scale, when a larger company can produce goods at a cheaper rate than a smaller one.
As a demerger inevitably involves the original company becoming two or more smaller ones, this advantage can be lost, and management is usually less inclined to inform shareholders of the potential loss of synergy before demerging.
The newly divided company can also find itself subject to less favourable borrowing costs if lenders and rating agencies decide its model is riskier after having offloaded a certain business segment.
We are subject to all 3
We lose the economies of scale, already discussed.
We lose management oversight.
Our costs go up.
Apart from that...
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1325778096151203843?s=20
That's it. Great news. The crisis is over - apocalypse averted. Many will still fall sick and die but the big picture is transformed. Lockdown Lite in place, on and off, for another few months, then a gradual return to life as we knew it BC.
Trump gone. Covid going. What a time to be alive. It's a new dawn, it's a new day, it's a new life.
And I'm having a banana.
Unless Oxford and others also have a working vaccine, life isn't going to return to normal in 2021. The UK didn't order anywhere near enough for the whole population if I remember.
The thought of doing anything on a track with it was unthinkable.
It was great fun, though.
By waiting, they have produced what seem to be statistically very strong results earlier than expected. And in any event they will have to wait for the two month safety data.
Worth pointing out that Pfizer were not part of operation 'Warp Speed', and financed this from their own resources. So the decisions were theirs to make.
*There might actually be a whisker of truth in this one.
I think that's an even money shot.
We gain more oversight since we directly control our own Parliament, whereas we didn't the EU.
Our costs go down since we were subsidising the EU.
Apart from that...
Trump's reaction is interesting. Given the timing, it's not hard to imagine him going off on one that it was deliberately held back to help Biden and fuelling further conspiracy theories about the election. He hasn't.