If these new variants are due to treatment of immunocompromised people with the antibody serum (as has been speculated), should we ban serum treatment?
It seems the most likely way that we are going to breed strains for which the vaccine won't work.
Bad for the individuals involved, but...
Vaccine resistant strains are only a matter of time, anyway. Whether they exist or not.
Catch you in late March, when lockdown is being extended because vaccine resistant strains of covid have been discovered.
Don't you expect the lockdown to be extended no matter what because you think the government enjoys it?
Hancock definitely enjoys it, I don;t know about the rest. They cannot alter their policy because to do so would admit a colossal, colossal error.
Lord Sumption called the government's advisors 'fanatics'. Prof John Lee said they encompass far too narrow a strand of scientific opinion, and there is much vested interest and reputational concern. None will ever miss a nice paycheck from any decision they make. A couple of the committee are avowed communists. None has any accountability or sanction.
I doubt they will ever stop locking us down, or ever recommend a full and complete end to restrictions. Do you think they will?
Sumption is either a liar or just rubbish when it comes to talking about the pandemic, he can be safely ignored.
Shagger Ferguson on the other hand. Towering intellect.
LOL, you keep on falling for Sumption's fake news.
Plenty of reports indicate that European voters are up in arms about the delayed vaccinations, vis a vis UK/USA etc
Real pressure on European politicians. This is an attempt to deflect that ire.
The Germans must be particularly hacked off with the govt, given that a German company invented the first vaccine.
Start in Spain 27/12 will be negligible difference between county’s in a month depending on supply has there been any more deliveries beyon the initial 500,000?
Well, yes: supply
Ireland - as part of the EU Consortium - is getting its first vaccines on 30th December. The initial allotment is... 10,000 doses.
Plenty of reports indicate that European voters are up in arms about the delayed vaccinations, vis a vis UK/USA etc
Real pressure on European politicians. This is an attempt to deflect that ire.
The Germans must be particularly hacked off with the govt, given that a German company invented the first vaccine.
Start in Spain 27/12 will be negligible difference between county’s in a month depending on supply has there been any more deliveries beyon the initial 500,000?
Mr. Pete, Starmer should back the deal, unless there's something horrendous in it.
The alternatives are overtly supporting No Deal (as he's ruled out backing an extension to negotiations) or, on one of the crucial matters of our time, sitting it out because he wants to be able to criticise without troubling himself to express an opinion.
Johnson has a majority of 80, he does not require Labour to back his "pig in a poke" deal. This is a Tory project, Labour should steer well clear. Abstain!
Captain Hindsight to show no leadership on the greatest issue of the day again?
Why are Conservative Brexiteers so keen for Labour to support their deal? I suspect you are setting an enormous elephant trap for the hapless Starmer. When your trade deal fails miserably you can call it the Starmer Deal, he after all supported it.
It's Johnson's deal, just as Iraq was Blair's war. Whether Labour backs it is neither here nor there, really. The bottom line is that any deal is better than no deal. And labour is not going to be arguing about the deal once it is done, it is going to be holding Johnson to account for the promises that he has made about delivering prosperity, levelling up and healing divisions, all while lowering taxes and increasing public spending.
I dispute that abstaining is a mark of Starmer's weakness, as claimed by every Johnson -ramping Tory on PB.
Agreed. It's a nonsense. He needs to make the political judgement as to what is best for Labour. If that is to abstain, then abstain is the correct choice. Johnson has negotiated the deal and has an 80 seat majority. He and the Tory Party have finally got their beloved Brexit done. That's the story right now. Next installment, we see how it pans out. We start the new game - spot the tangible benefit.
I suspect Starmer will have to support the deal personally, given his recent comments saying no to an extension, just get the deal done.
I'd like him to adopt a novel sort of 3-line whip: Labour MPs are free to either support or abstain on the deal, but they can't oppose it as this would be seen as attempting to 'block Brexit'. Many MPs will struggle to vote positively for a crap deal - give them the choice to abstain as a matter of conscience. As others have said, nobody will remember in a few months how Labour voted.
Starmer abstaining = Starmer accepting no deal as an option. Incredibly easy for his opponenets and the media to frame this argument.
But look at the other options -
Vote Yes, become collaborators and detract from the Tory Party's ownership of Brexit. Piss off lots of Remainers. Can be taken as approval of the actual deal, ie Johnson did a good job.
Vote No, allow in spades the "accepting No Deal" spin and (potentially more damaging) could be taken by Red Wall Leavers as committing that most cardinal of sins, "trying to stop Brexit".
Abstain works for me.
I'm one of the biggest remainers out there and I have no problem with him voting yes as long as he says that as soon as he is in power he will ask the EU for a better (i.e. closer one). Anyone who thinks this deal will mean the end of Brexit is living in Dreamland.
A Labour Party trying to partially repeal Brexit and bring back Freedom of Movement etc would be the biggest gift for the Tories there could be. Someone asked on here the other day how Labour could avoid the identity politics trap. The first step in that should be accepting Brexit, accepting the deal, and accepting limited immigration.
Not much chance of that in a party that still goes on about Ed Miliband's 'racist mugs' (!) to this day.
Starmer abstaining = Starmer accepting no deal as an option. Incredibly easy for his opponenets and the media to frame this argument.
But look at the other options -
Vote Yes, become collaborators and detract from the Tory Party's ownership of Brexit. Piss off lots of Remainers. Can be taken as approval of the actual deal, ie Johnson did a good job.
Vote No, allow in spades the "accepting No Deal" spin and (potentially more damaging) could be taken by Red Wall Leavers as committing that most cardinal of sins, "trying to stop Brexit".
Abstain works for me.
I'm one of the biggest remainers out there and I have no problem with him voting yes as long as he says that as soon as he is in power he will ask the EU for a better (i.e. closer one). Anyone who thinks this deal will mean the end of Brexit is living in Dreamland.
A Labour Party trying to partially repeal Brexit and bring back Freedom of Movement etc would be the biggest gift for the Tories there could be. Someone asked on here the other day how Labour could avoid the identity politics trap. The first step in that should be accepting Brexit, accepting the deal, and accepting limited immigration.
If there is a deal, both extremes, Farage and the LDs/Remainer hardcore are shafted. One side will say repudiate the deal and the other side will advocate rejoin but I cannot see any appetite within the vast majority in the middle to reopen things. I think most people will be happy to breathe a sigh of relief and move on
Starmer abstaining = Starmer accepting no deal as an option. Incredibly easy for his opponenets and the media to frame this argument.
But look at the other options -
Vote Yes, become collaborators and detract from the Tory Party's ownership of Brexit. Piss off lots of Remainers. Can be taken as approval of the actual deal, ie Johnson did a good job.
Vote No, allow in spades the "accepting No Deal" spin and (potentially more damaging) could be taken by Red Wall Leavers as committing that most cardinal of sins, "trying to stop Brexit".
Abstain works for me.
I'm one of the biggest remainers out there and I have no problem with him voting yes as long as he says that as soon as he is in power he will ask the EU for a better (i.e. closer one). Anyone who thinks this deal will mean the end of Brexit is living in Dreamland.
A Labour Party trying to partially repeal Brexit and bring back Freedom of Movement etc would be the biggest gift for the Tories there could be. Someone asked on here the other day how Labour could avoid the identity politics trap. The first step in that should be accepting Brexit, accepting the deal, and accepting limited immigration.
There's something in that (though I don't know whether either party actually has to accept limited immigration, just to say the right things about seeking to limit it or that it is not racist in itself to want to limit it, and achieving it is another thing), but while there is a danger in abstaining too often, abstaining on a deal could still be spun as accepting Brexit, and cannot be held over their head as effectively as voting for it.
Getting a small amount of vaccine first doesn't get you to normal, particularly when - as we are doing - economically inactive people are being prioritised (To reduce deaths). Getting to the herd ~ 70% or so level first will be what counts.
That's not really true, though. Vaccinating the really vulnerable has all sorts of positive effects on morale, mental health, and - very importantly - destressing health systems.
It is the old and already-sick who are most likely to end up in ICU on a ventilator, if they catch Covid. Take them out of the equation and suddenly everything is easier. And there's also less infection to spread (or mutate, as we see).
Basically vaccination is an overwhelming positive and the sooner and bigger you do it, the better; and every day counts.
Plenty of reports indicate that European voters are up in arms about the delayed vaccinations, vis a vis UK/USA etc
Real pressure on European politicians. This is an attempt to deflect that ire.
The Germans must be particularly hacked off with the govt, given that a German company invented the first vaccine.
Start in Spain 27/12 will be negligible difference between county’s in a month depending on supply has there been any more deliveries beyon the initial 500,000?
Well, yes: supply
Ireland - as part of the EU Consortium - is getting its first vaccines on 30th December. The initial allotment is... 10,000 doses.
The Spiegel story - according to my French friends - is going down like a lead ballon.
As in "untrue" or "rumbled"?
"Not surprising" is the common theme so far - the bit about the French government blocking a bigger buy unless the French company got a bigger order....
It is, after all, the country, where when the propellors failed for the new aircraft carrier, there was a fire at the company in question. In the middle of the night. In the records office. Which destroyed one filing cabinet..... Everyone I knew just shrugged.
LOLs. As a weapon inspector in Iraq, that is precisely what happened at one location inspected. A fire in just one filing cabinet. At least the Iraqis were more efficient at containing the hazard than the French - they kept the fire to just one drawer.
Plenty of reports indicate that European voters are up in arms about the delayed vaccinations, vis a vis UK/USA etc
Real pressure on European politicians. This is an attempt to deflect that ire.
The Germans must be particularly hacked off with the govt, given that a German company invented the first vaccine.
Start in Spain 27/12 will be negligible difference between county’s in a month depending on supply has there been any more deliveries beyon the initial 500,000?
Well, yes: supply
Ireland - as part of the EU Consortium - is getting its first vaccines on 30th December. The initial allotment is... 10,000 doses.
10,000. Are they serious?
Yes. Irish Times, yesterday,
Could you imagine if we were in that scheme? Instead of 4m by the end of this year delivered we'd have maybe 125k. It would have been a disaster.
Starmer abstaining = Starmer accepting no deal as an option. Incredibly easy for his opponenets and the media to frame this argument.
But look at the other options -
Vote Yes, become collaborators and detract from the Tory Party's ownership of Brexit. Piss off lots of Remainers. Can be taken as approval of the actual deal, ie Johnson did a good job.
Vote No, allow in spades the "accepting No Deal" spin and (potentially more damaging) could be taken by Red Wall Leavers as committing that most cardinal of sins, "trying to stop Brexit".
Abstain works for me.
I'm one of the biggest remainers out there and I have no problem with him voting yes as long as he says that as soon as he is in power he will ask the EU for a better (i.e. closer one). Anyone who thinks this deal will mean the end of Brexit is living in Dreamland.
A Labour Party trying to partially repeal Brexit and bring back Freedom of Movement etc would be the biggest gift for the Tories there could be. Someone asked on here the other day how Labour could avoid the identity politics trap. The first step in that should be accepting Brexit, accepting the deal, and accepting limited immigration.
There's something in that (though I don't know whether either party actually has to accept limited immigration, just to say the right things about seeking to limit it or that it is not racist in itself to want to limit it, and achieving it is another thing), but while there is a danger in abstaining too often, abstaining on a deal could still be spun as accepting Brexit, and cannot be held over their head as effectively as voting for it.
Politicos of all types underestimate the public's ability to tell whether a politician is serious about a position or not. Labour flick back and forth between centrist and left wing economics, but they continue to be way out of the mainstream on topics like immigration and identity politics. Putting a slogan on a mug doesn't count for anything when you open up uncontrolled immigration from Eastern Europe again. Labour just needs to let the Brexit issue be seen as resolved as soon as possible.
The PM timing his victory/surrender (take your pick or somewhere in between) perfectly for a Christmas present, and to give his beloved optimism for the new year. Well, perfectly for his short term popularity, shit for business who have no time to prepare and have faced ridiculous uncertainty.
Yep. Pathetic.
Pathetic? Good negotiations always go to the wire.
What would be pathetic is if anyone tried to pretend we could have gotten the same deal from Barnier months ago. You're not going to try something so credulous are you?
I've explained this many times but, ok, one more for the pot. WTO was never an option for the UK. A Deal was therefore certain. The substance of the Deal was inevitable - FOM ends and something significant on Fish, being our red lines, and the EU big red line of protecting the integrity of their SM respected. We can diverge from LPF but at a price. It could have been agreed well before now. The last minute theatrics were to give Johnson the optics he wants for selling it domestically. Generates a sense of relief and great PR (for consumption by the 'not really following' and the gullible, who together are many) of "Boris" battling to the wire for Britain. This political benefit (to himself) was deemed more important than all of the unnecessary fear and chaos caused. It's bang on brand.
Getting a small amount of vaccine first doesn't get you to normal, particularly when - as we are doing - economically inactive people are being prioritised (To reduce deaths). Getting to the herd ~ 70% or so level first will be what counts.
That's not really true, though. Vaccinating the really vulnerable has all sorts of positive effects on morale, mental health, and - very importantly - destressing health systems.
It is the old and already-sick who are most likely to end up in ICU on a ventilator, if they catch Covid. Take them out of the equation and suddenly everything is easier. And there's also less infection to spread (or mutate, as we see).
Basically vaccination is an overwhelming positive and the sooner and bigger you do it, the better; and every day counts.
I'd agree with Leon here. Vaccinating the most vulnerable populations and those who have to care for them - either in home care or in hospitals - is more effective.
For those economically active who are infected, two things - while asymptomatic they should be mask wearing and social distancing so massively reducing the number they infect, and once symptomatic, they should be self-isolating at home until if and when they need hospitalization.
For more vulnerable populations, they are highly likely to need prolonged medical contact, ie. one-on-one, close up medical treatment, thereby massively increasing their potential to spread the virus to healthcare workers or home care personnel.
Even with PPE, prolonged direct contact medical care, particularly that involving aerosol-generating procedures such as intubation, carries a far higher risk of onward infection than properly mask-wearing social-distancing asymptomatic economically-active persons in my view.
Basically vaccination is an overwhelming positive and the sooner and bigger you do it, the better; and every day counts.
It strikes me that this is exactly the same situation with taking action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The more you do, the earlier, the better.
Hopefully we will carry over the urgency and determination with the Covid vaccines to developing and implementing the technologies that will enable us to prevent the worst of that catastrophe too.
We paid twice as much to ensure we received the vaccine first. Which is money well spent if you have a choice between things returning to something like normality versus another 6 months in lockdown.
I don't even think it was twice as much. But worth every penny whatever was paid.
The EU have made a mess of their rollout. We may well have arguments here over who and where is first in the queue but it could be a huge cause of conflict if the big EU players are at the front of their queue.
The EU are rolling it out on a population basis - much as the UK is, so Germany gets 18%.....
And who gets the blame if Germany vaccinates half the population by May while Spain is 3 months behind? A vaccination rollout programme should certainly be one area where EU bureaucracy would have been a hinderance to the UK. We did well to procure the Pfizer vaccine before anywhere else and then to approve it first. The government and medical bodies deserve a lot of credit on that front.
Vaccine distribution will be every Monday to the individual communities to organize distribution I’m sure someone has the ‘facts’ about how much and when is distributed in each country but it’s far more fun to make them up to fit your own narrative.
So if I'm Irish and my country are only getting the vaccine distributed at the same rate as Germany I'm going to be mighty pissed off that a small country outside the EU could easily have sourced enough of the Pfizer vaccine to achieve herd immunity by Q2, yet by being an EU member the months have to tick by because it needs to be proportinately distributed.
Sounds like a mess to me and the 'even-handedness' is grossly unfair to the smaller nations.
Read your (vg) post on PT about you and your dad, re generational conflict, and it reminded me of something with mine quite recently.
Chatting to him about a doctor's appointment he'd had and he said to me -
"It was a new bloke. Hadn't seen him before. He was Indian but he was fine."
I said why the but? He was mortified. Said "oh god, what an arsehole I am, that says something about me, doesn't it? It shows how deep-seated some of my outdated attitudes are. Thanks for pointing it out, son."
I smiled gently and said he wasn't an arsehole, no way. The fact he now got it, and so quickly, showed the very opposite. But that he should remain vigilant. Try not to embarrass himself again like that in my presence.
A lot of elderly are deaf and have trouble picking up Indian accents (assuming they were Indian and not Brummie or whatever). Sometimes all "fine" means is that they could hear them properly. I don't know if this is the case with your dad.
I had fun with getting my dad sorted out with something at the bank. He could not understand a word on the telephone to their Indian call centre and they wouldn't speak to me, so we had to go to the branch. The branch rang up the same call centre and put him on the phone. Doh!
No, it was a true story. His use of "but" was a tell of innate racism and to his credit he admitted this straightaway. And he did actually thank me for pointing it out.
Starmer abstaining = Starmer accepting no deal as an option. Incredibly easy for his opponenets and the media to frame this argument.
But look at the other options -
Vote Yes, become collaborators and detract from the Tory Party's ownership of Brexit. Piss off lots of Remainers. Can be taken as approval of the actual deal, ie Johnson did a good job.
Vote No, allow in spades the "accepting No Deal" spin and (potentially more damaging) could be taken by Red Wall Leavers as committing that most cardinal of sins, "trying to stop Brexit".
Abstain works for me.
I'm one of the biggest remainers out there and I have no problem with him voting yes as long as he says that as soon as he is in power he will ask the EU for a better (i.e. closer one). Anyone who thinks this deal will mean the end of Brexit is living in Dreamland.
A Labour Party trying to partially repeal Brexit and bring back Freedom of Movement etc would be the biggest gift for the Tories there could be. Someone asked on here the other day how Labour could avoid the identity politics trap. The first step in that should be accepting Brexit, accepting the deal, and accepting limited immigration.
If there is a deal, both extremes, Farage and the LDs/Remainer hardcore are shafted. One side will say repudiate the deal and the other side will advocate rejoin but I cannot see any appetite within the vast majority in the middle to reopen things. I think most people will be happy to breathe a sigh of relief and move on
I suspect Farage will be quite happy with a deal. He'll not say it's a good deal, but Brexit with a deal is still Brexit and our future is mostly in our own hands.
Farage isn't really an extreme though anyway, face of that side of the argument though he is.
Plenty of reports indicate that European voters are up in arms about the delayed vaccinations, vis a vis UK/USA etc
Real pressure on European politicians. This is an attempt to deflect that ire.
The Germans must be particularly hacked off with the govt, given that a German company invented the first vaccine.
Start in Spain 27/12 will be negligible difference between county’s in a month depending on supply has there been any more deliveries beyon the initial 500,000?
Well, yes: supply
Ireland - as part of the EU Consortium - is getting its first vaccines on 30th December. The initial allotment is... 10,000 doses.
10,000. Are they serious?
Yes. Irish Times, yesterday,
Could you imagine if we were in that scheme? Instead of 4m by the end of this year delivered we'd have maybe 125k. It would have been a disaster.
Yes, I have been critical about many parts of the government's response to this epidemic, but when it comes to vaccines - top marks.
I predict very strong post-transition growth in 2021 📈 and 2022 📈
Probably two years with the fast growth recorded in decades.
I would expect there'll be quite a lot of post-CV19 bounce. But I'd be surprised if there was any meaningful near term additional economic growth driven by Brexit.
In the real world of course, the UK economy is already 8/9% smaller than per pandemic. and the new measures being introduced now probably mean a further recession.
Our deficit is USD240bn over 8 months, reaching USD400bn by next April. Probably more if shagger Ferguson gets his way and there is another full lockdown in January.
That full lockdown will be the last straw for a further swathe of businesses. Paul Johnson of the IFS said the other day a great deal of further damage will be done in the following years when we will still be running very large deficits, because it will be impossible to get back to normal quickly.
Real cost of COVID 19? its going to be close to a trillion pounds all told. That's always supposing Ferguson & Co don;t dream up another threat next year, which right now looks pretty likely, given their track record.
POst covid 19? there is no post covid 19. There is no prosper mightily and there is no getting out of this.
The only things that are getting us out of this is running out of money, or people deciding the risks are worth getting their lives back.
Weren't you posting links about how well the US economy was performing as restrictions were removed?
The same will happen in the UK. (And even in France and Germany.) The levels of debt the UK government has are about the same as 1967, when the economy performed (checks) actually rather well.
Businesses will go out of business.
You know what? That sucks for the owners. But that's a feature of capitalism.
New businesses spring up. Did you know that in the US there's a direct relationship between rate of business failure and economic growth: states with more business failures perform better. Why? Because business failure is capital being deployed more efficiently. It's a feature, not a bug.
And finally, you know that big government debt. Most of it is owed to the BoE. It will never be repaid back.
We are not removing restrictions. We are increasing them. Hugely.
And businesses are going out of business not because they are unviable in a free market, but because of government order.
But we shall see.
I advise bitcoin. Even now.
But that's quite enough from me, I think.
We are not removing restrictions. We are increasing them. Hugely.
Well, duh. My point is that the restrictions, when they are removed (which they will be, because they are, you know, pretty unpopular) will result in economic growth accelerating.
Restrictions will be loosened (and ultimately removed) in 2021.
Now, you can disagree with that if you like, but you'd be wrong.
Your second point is just bunkum. Firstly, the economic carnage in US states without lockdowns is just as bad as placed with them. So, the idea that the problems are all caused by government orders is trivially and provably incorrect. Secondly, this kind of producer capture economic analysis is so dangerous. We coddle business owners in the West, which is bad for economic growth and bad for social mobility. Failure should be an option. Rich people should regularly lose everything.
If these new variants are due to treatment of immunocompromised people with the antibody serum (as has been speculated), should we ban serum treatment?
It seems the most likely way that we are going to breed strains for which the vaccine won't work.
Bad for the individuals involved, but...
Vaccine resistant strains are only a matter of time, anyway. Whether they exist or not.
Catch you in late March, when lockdown is being extended because vaccine resistant strains of covid have been discovered.
Don't you expect the lockdown to be extended no matter what because you think the government enjoys it?
Hancock definitely enjoys it, I don;t know about the rest. They cannot alter their policy because to do so would admit a colossal, colossal error.
Lord Sumption called the government's advisors 'fanatics'. Prof John Lee said they encompass far too narrow a strand of scientific opinion, and there is much vested interest and reputational concern. None will ever miss a nice paycheck from any decision they make. A couple of the committee are avowed communists. None has any accountability or sanction.
I doubt they will ever stop locking us down, or ever recommend a full and complete end to restrictions. Do you think they will?
Sumption is either a liar or just rubbish when it comes to talking about the pandemic, he can be safely ignored.
Shagger Ferguson on the other hand. Towering intellect.
LOL, you keep on falling for Sumption's fake news.
The Spiegel story - according to my French friends - is going down like a lead ballon.
As in "untrue" or "rumbled"?
"Not surprising" is the common theme so far - the bit about the French government blocking a bigger buy unless the French company got a bigger order....
It is, after all, the country, where when the propellors failed for the new aircraft carrier, there was a fire at the company in question. In the middle of the night. In the records office. Which destroyed one filing cabinet..... Everyone I knew just shrugged.
LOLs. As a weapon inspector in Iraq, that is precisely what happened at one location inspected. A fire in just one filing cabinet. At least the Iraqis were more efficient at containing the hazard than the French - they kept the fire to just one drawer.
The interesting bit is the way it effects the view of *how* society should run.
When Dominique Strauss-Kahn was arrested, quite few French people I knew were outraged. Not by the charges, or by the Americans arresting him. Well, not exactly.
They were outraged that his membership of the elite hadn't got him out of trouble automatically. In their view, being a Big Wheel in France gets you privileges - which the Americans hadn't respected.
The total f*ck up of the arrest etc. was almost ignored.
The Spiegel story - according to my French friends - is going down like a lead ballon.
As in "untrue" or "rumbled"?
"Not surprising" is the common theme so far - the bit about the French government blocking a bigger buy unless the French company got a bigger order....
It is, after all, the country, where when the propellors failed for the new aircraft carrier, there was a fire at the company in question. In the middle of the night. In the records office. Which destroyed one filing cabinet..... Everyone I knew just shrugged.
LOLs. As a weapon inspector in Iraq, that is precisely what happened at one location inspected. A fire in just one filing cabinet. At least the Iraqis were more efficient at containing the hazard than the French - they kept the fire to just one drawer.
The French had long and profitable relationship with Iraq - perhaps there was a cultural exchange as well......
Mr. Observer, you're right that the clown will get the praise or blame for the deal, if one is agreed.
However, those who are contemplating whether Starmer is worth backing should he be the candidate for PM opposing the buffoon might consider his decision here a factor of significant weight.
Yes. Obviously. But they won't all want the same thing from him. Some will want him to support the deal, others to oppose it or abstain. Such is the Brexit conundrum for Labour. It was meant to tear the Tory Party apart. Instead it's screwed Labour and delivered the Tories a landslide. Bastard Bastard Brexit. Hate it Hate it Hate it.
The delicious irony is that had Labour abstained on May's deal it could have torn the Tories apart. While Labour could have pledged to build on and move further than May.
Thank goodness that didn't happen.
Love it love it love it.
Ok. That's enough LOVE/HATE. Got it out of our respective systems.
Re counterfactuals, there are lots. My favourite one is no Benn Act. What a mistake that was.
The PM timing his victory/surrender (take your pick or somewhere in between) perfectly for a Christmas present, and to give his beloved optimism for the new year. Well, perfectly for his short term popularity, shit for business who have no time to prepare and have faced ridiculous uncertainty.
Yep. Pathetic.
Pathetic? Good negotiations always go to the wire.
What would be pathetic is if anyone tried to pretend we could have gotten the same deal from Barnier months ago. You're not going to try something so credulous are you?
I've explained this many times but, ok, one more for the pot. WTO was never an option for the UK. A Deal was therefore certain. The substance of the Deal was inevitable - FOM ends and something significant on Fish, being our red lines, and the EU big red line of protecting the integrity of their SM respected. We can diverge from LPF but at a price. It could have been agreed well before now. The last minute theatrics were to give Johnson the optics he wants for selling it domestically. Generates a sense of relief and great PR (for consumption by the 'not really following' and the gullible, who together are many) of "Boris" battling to the wire for Britain. This political benefit (to himself) was deemed more important than all of the unnecessary fear and chaos caused. It's bang on brand.
No you couldn't be more wrong.
Yes that was always the likely shape of the deal if it went to the wire given the respected red lines.
But that doesn't mean that a deal could have been agreed months sooner. You are completely gullible and naive if you believe that.
It couldn't have been agreed sooner because whomever was wanting to 'fold' months sooner would have paid a price for doing so. If we had insisted upon settling months sooner then Barnier would have said "ok here's my terms now sign" as he did with May.
Taking it to the wire was necessary for Barnier etc to move. Otherwise whoever is first mover pays the price for that.
We paid twice as much to ensure we received the vaccine first. Which is money well spent if you have a choice between things returning to something like normality versus another 6 months in lockdown.
I don't even think it was twice as much. But worth every penny whatever was paid.
The EU have made a mess of their rollout. We may well have arguments here over who and where is first in the queue but it could be a huge cause of conflict if the big EU players are at the front of their queue.
The EU are rolling it out on a population basis - much as the UK is, so Germany gets 18%.....
And who gets the blame if Germany vaccinates half the population by May while Spain is 3 months behind? A vaccination rollout programme should certainly be one area where EU bureaucracy would have been a hinderance to the UK. We did well to procure the Pfizer vaccine before anywhere else and then to approve it first. The government and medical bodies deserve a lot of credit on that front.
Vaccine distribution will be every Monday to the individual communities to organize distribution I’m sure someone has the ‘facts’ about how much and when is distributed in each country but it’s far more fun to make them up to fit your own narrative.
So if I'm Irish and my country are only getting the vaccine distributed at the same rate as Germany I'm going to be mighty pissed off that a small country outside the EU could easily have sourced enough of the Pfizer vaccine to achieve herd immunity by Q2, yet by being an EU member the months have to tick by because it needs to be proportinately distributed.
Sounds like a mess to me and the 'even-handedness' is grossly unfair to the smaller nations.
I would think also that it is inefficient at containing the pandemic (and I know that the WHO Covax consortium runs on the same idea that no country gets more than 20% doses until all partners have 20%). In my view, it would be far more efficient to concentrate on natural epidemiological regions (i.e. geographies in which diseases naturally spread), and one by one bring these up to herd immunity levels as quickly as possibly before moving on to the next one, i.e. get to herd immunity serially, rather than in parallel.
I know there are a lot of equity questions with that approach, but I think it would be more effective.
I actually think May would have done a great job. She is much maligned for Brexit negotiations, but her Withdrawal Agreement could have got 100% of our fish back...
The PM timing his victory/surrender (take your pick or somewhere in between) perfectly for a Christmas present, and to give his beloved optimism for the new year. Well, perfectly for his short term popularity, shit for business who have no time to prepare and have faced ridiculous uncertainty.
Yep. Pathetic.
Pathetic? Good negotiations always go to the wire.
What would be pathetic is if anyone tried to pretend we could have gotten the same deal from Barnier months ago. You're not going to try something so credulous are you?
I've explained this many times but, ok, one more for the pot. WTO was never an option for the UK. A Deal was therefore certain. The substance of the Deal was inevitable - FOM ends and something significant on Fish, being our red lines, and the EU big red line of protecting the integrity of their SM respected. We can diverge from LPF but at a price. It could have been agreed well before now. The last minute theatrics were to give Johnson the optics he wants for selling it domestically. Generates a sense of relief and great PR (for consumption by the 'not really following' and the gullible, who together are many) of "Boris" battling to the wire for Britain. This political benefit (to himself) was deemed more important than all of the unnecessary fear and chaos caused. It's bang on brand.
No you couldn't be more wrong.
Yes that was always the likely shape of the deal if it went to the wire given the respected red lines.
But that doesn't mean that a deal could have been agreed months sooner. You are completely gullible and naive if you believe that.
It couldn't have been agreed sooner because whomever was wanting to 'fold' months sooner would have paid a price for doing so. If we had insisted upon settling months sooner then Barnier would have said "ok here's my terms now sign" as he did with May.
Taking it to the wire was necessary for Barnier etc to move. Otherwise whoever is first mover pays the price for that.
Basic negotiations 101 - whoever enters the ZOPA first gets screwed.
Mr. Observer, you're right that the clown will get the praise or blame for the deal, if one is agreed.
However, those who are contemplating whether Starmer is worth backing should he be the candidate for PM opposing the buffoon might consider his decision here a factor of significant weight.
Yes. Obviously. But they won't all want the same thing from him. Some will want him to support the deal, others to oppose it or abstain. Such is the Brexit conundrum for Labour. It was meant to tear the Tory Party apart. Instead it's screwed Labour and delivered the Tories a landslide. Bastard Bastard Brexit. Hate it Hate it Hate it.
For something that is not incontrovertibly a good idea, Brexit does have some wonderful side effects
Mmm. In fact a pretty terrible idea iyo. And don't demur on that. I know. I'm trying to imagine something equivalent for me. The country does something very stupid but it wins an election for Labour. Would I be happy? I really don't think I would, person of enormous integrity that I am.
Mr. Observer, you're right that the clown will get the praise or blame for the deal, if one is agreed.
However, those who are contemplating whether Starmer is worth backing should he be the candidate for PM opposing the buffoon might consider his decision here a factor of significant weight.
Yes. Obviously. But they won't all want the same thing from him. Some will want him to support the deal, others to oppose it or abstain. Such is the Brexit conundrum for Labour. It was meant to tear the Tory Party apart. Instead it's screwed Labour and delivered the Tories a landslide. Bastard Bastard Brexit. Hate it Hate it Hate it.
The delicious irony is that had Labour abstained on May's deal it could have torn the Tories apart. While Labour could have pledged to build on and move further than May.
Thank goodness that didn't happen.
Love it love it love it.
Ok. That's enough LOVE/HATE. Got it out of our respective systems.
Re counterfactuals, there are lots. My favourite one is no Benn Act. What a mistake that was.
The Benn Act was preposterous. You hold a NC vote against the PM in those circs, not force him to write a letter of your choosing. An attempt to humiliate Boris, too clever by half, and seen through by the public. The best way to defeat Boris is simply to leave the door open so he can get tied up in his own contradictions.
The Spiegel story - according to my French friends - is going down like a lead ballon.
As in "untrue" or "rumbled"?
"Not surprising" is the common theme so far - the bit about the French government blocking a bigger buy unless the French company got a bigger order....
It is, after all, the country, where when the propellors failed for the new aircraft carrier, there was a fire at the company in question. In the middle of the night. In the records office. Which destroyed one filing cabinet..... Everyone I knew just shrugged.
LOLs. As a weapon inspector in Iraq, that is precisely what happened at one location inspected. A fire in just one filing cabinet. At least the Iraqis were more efficient at containing the hazard than the French - they kept the fire to just one drawer.
The interesting bit is the way it effects the view of *how* society should run.
When Dominique Strauss-Kahn was arrested, quite few French people I knew were outraged. Not by the charges, or by the Americans arresting him. Well, not exactly.
They were outraged that his membership of the elite hadn't got him out of trouble automatically. In their view, being a Big Wheel in France gets you privileges - which the Americans hadn't respected.
The total f*ck up of the arrest etc. was almost ignored.
I'm currently watching through all of Spiral, a French police drama which is on iPlayer. I've been wondering if what I've seen about the favours the French elite seem to get in that show was true in the real world and your description seems to confirm this.
Amazing to think she was last prime minister 30 years ago, before a third of the country was born, yet still we remember her and want her back.
That a third of the country wasnt yet born and for the rest it's so long ago its caught up in nostalgia or myth, positive and negative, is probably the main factor. Not so far back to be distant memory, far enough that its divorced from present.
"German Health Minister Spahn pushed for more to be purchased, but he failed to prevail in the end due to opposition from several EU member countries -- in part, apparently, because the EU had ordered only 300 million doses from the French company Sanofi. "That’s why buying more from a German company wasn't in the cards,” says one insider familiar with the negotiations. The European Commission has denied that version of events, saying it isn’t true that Paris took massive steps to protect Sanofi."
Amazing to think she was last prime minister 30 years ago, before a third of the country was born, yet still we remember her and want her back.
She remains our greatest PM of the last 100 years bar Churchill, transformed the country economically, won the Falklands War and played an important role in winning the Cold War and was a major figure on the world stage recognised across the globe, nobody else gets close, with Blair a distant second in recent decades as the poll confirms
Getting a small amount of vaccine first doesn't get you to normal, particularly when - as we are doing - economically inactive people are being prioritised (To reduce deaths). Getting to the herd ~ 70% or so level first will be what counts.
That's not really true, though. Vaccinating the really vulnerable has all sorts of positive effects on morale, mental health, and - very importantly - destressing health systems.
It is the old and already-sick who are most likely to end up in ICU on a ventilator, if they catch Covid. Take them out of the equation and suddenly everything is easier. And there's also less infection to spread (or mutate, as we see).
Basically vaccination is an overwhelming positive and the sooner and bigger you do it, the better; and every day counts.
Vaccinating the vulnerable presumably slashes the death rate (and hospital utilisation). We then don't care much if anyone else catches it.
Plenty of reports indicate that European voters are up in arms about the delayed vaccinations, vis a vis UK/USA etc
Real pressure on European politicians. This is an attempt to deflect that ire.
The Germans must be particularly hacked off with the govt, given that a German company invented the first vaccine.
Start in Spain 27/12 will be negligible difference between county’s in a month depending on supply has there been any more deliveries beyon the initial 500,000?
Well, yes: supply
Ireland - as part of the EU Consortium - is getting its first vaccines on 30th December. The initial allotment is... 10,000 doses.
10,000. Are they serious?
The Irish Times is a fine source of news both Irish and foreign.
This, from Ireland itself, tells us that Supercovid is now, almost certainly, stampeding around Eire
"Dr Colm Henry, HSE chief clinical officer, said recent days had seen “extraordinary growth in infection beyond what our extreme versions of modelling would have predicted.”
“We are deteriorating at a more rapid pace, in seven days, than any other country in Europe,” he said. The rate at which the virus was spreading had reached a “frightening level,” he said."
Here's a story from Germany. So many Covid deaths in one German region a crematorium is having trouble dealing with all the corpses. Which is odd, given the practical experience Germany has in this.... OK I won't got there.
Starmer abstaining = Starmer accepting no deal as an option. Incredibly easy for his opponenets and the media to frame this argument.
But look at the other options -
Vote Yes, become collaborators and detract from the Tory Party's ownership of Brexit. Piss off lots of Remainers. Can be taken as approval of the actual deal, ie Johnson did a good job.
Vote No, allow in spades the "accepting No Deal" spin and (potentially more damaging) could be taken by Red Wall Leavers as committing that most cardinal of sins, "trying to stop Brexit".
Abstain works for me.
I'm one of the biggest remainers out there and I have no problem with him voting yes as long as he says that as soon as he is in power he will ask the EU for a better (i.e. closer one). Anyone who thinks this deal will mean the end of Brexit is living in Dreamland.
A Labour Party trying to partially repeal Brexit and bring back Freedom of Movement etc would be the biggest gift for the Tories there could be. Someone asked on here the other day how Labour could avoid the identity politics trap. The first step in that should be accepting Brexit, accepting the deal, and accepting limited immigration.
If there is a deal, both extremes, Farage and the LDs/Remainer hardcore are shafted. One side will say repudiate the deal and the other side will advocate rejoin but I cannot see any appetite within the vast majority in the middle to reopen things. I think most people will be happy to breathe a sigh of relief and move on
I suspect Farage will be quite happy with a deal. He'll not say it's a good deal, but Brexit with a deal is still Brexit and our future is mostly in our own hands.
Farage isn't really an extreme though anyway, face of that side of the argument though he is.
He's been focusing on 'sell out' Brexit for some time. It's inconceivable now that any deal will be very different to what was already on the table. It's possible Johnson might agree to it now so parliament doesn't have time to scrutinise it. What a way to run a country.
Starmer abstaining = Starmer accepting no deal as an option. Incredibly easy for his opponenets and the media to frame this argument.
But look at the other options -
Vote Yes, become collaborators and detract from the Tory Party's ownership of Brexit. Piss off lots of Remainers. Can be taken as approval of the actual deal, ie Johnson did a good job.
Vote No, allow in spades the "accepting No Deal" spin and (potentially more damaging) could be taken by Red Wall Leavers as committing that most cardinal of sins, "trying to stop Brexit".
Abstain works for me.
I'm one of the biggest remainers out there and I have no problem with him voting yes as long as he says that as soon as he is in power he will ask the EU for a better (i.e. closer one). Anyone who thinks this deal will mean the end of Brexit is living in Dreamland.
A Labour Party trying to partially repeal Brexit and bring back Freedom of Movement etc would be the biggest gift for the Tories there could be. Someone asked on here the other day how Labour could avoid the identity politics trap. The first step in that should be accepting Brexit, accepting the deal, and accepting limited immigration.
If there is a deal, both extremes, Farage and the LDs/Remainer hardcore are shafted. One side will say repudiate the deal and the other side will advocate rejoin but I cannot see any appetite within the vast majority in the middle to reopen things. I think most people will be happy to breathe a sigh of relief and move on
I suspect Farage will be quite happy with a deal. He'll not say it's a good deal, but Brexit with a deal is still Brexit and our future is mostly in our own hands.
Farage isn't really an extreme though anyway, face of that side of the argument though he is.
He's been focusing on 'sell out' Brexit for some time. It's inconceivable now that any deal will be very different to what was already on the table. It's possible Johnson might agree to it now so parliament doesn't have time to scrutinise it. What a way to run a country.
Sure, but he wants to be sure that Brexit is Brexit. I may be wrong, but I think he'll pipe down after it's done and dusted.
Agreed, but note that two other polls on the two preceding days due the Democrats ahead - in one case by 5-7 points, by Survey USA, who are highly-rated by 538. As usual in the US, the samples range from the mediocre (1400) to the feeble (600). Basically it still looks like a toss-up.
Amazing to think she was last prime minister 30 years ago, before a third of the country was born, yet still we remember her and want her back.
She remains our greatest PM of the last 100 years bar Churchill, transformed the country economically, won the Falklands War and played an important role in winning the Cold War and was a major figure on the world stage, nobody else gets close, with Blair a distant second as the poll confirms
Well yes, of course. But also, practically, the British people are right: she had precisely the correct skillset for dealing with a virus like this.
She was flinty, and brave, and smart. She was happy to take unpopular but correct decisions, she was a good strategic thinker, and she had a high-powered, real world background in proper hard science. She would be the ideal Covid PM.
Amazing to think she was last prime minister 30 years ago, before a third of the country was born, yet still we remember her and want her back.
She remains our greatest PM of the last 100 years bar Churchill, transformed the country economically, won the Falklands War and played an important role in winning the Cold War and was a major figure on the world stage recognised across the globe, nobody else gets close, with Blair a distant second in recent decades as the poll confirms
The Falklands War was her own responsibility, I'm not sure how much difference she actually made regards the cold war (though she was undeniably the Iron Lady) and whilst she transformed the country economically it's again dubious how much that was for the better.
What we really, really need are ongoing figures on how the 500K people who have had the vaccination are getting on compared with others in the same age groups. We're not expecting the 95% protection rate for anyone till mid-January, but the first injection gives some protection and some data should be coming through, not least on whether the new variant is popping up among many who have been vaccinated (we think not, but would be nicer to know).
The French vetoed purchase of more Pfizerr/BioNTech vaccine than Sanofi was contracted to supply. It was denied but reps from Pfizer (and Moderna) have said that 300m was the hard limit of what they were willing to buy which is also coincidentally the number ordered from Sanofi.
Truss continuing to flex her muscles... but not sure her dove stance on China will go down well with party MPs. Might be a miss-step. Misstep. Missstep? You know what I mean...
Sorry, I gave that 4bn figure from memory. According to their own website, once all production capacity is online in June 2021, Novavax will have a 2bn annual capacity.
"German Health Minister Spahn pushed for more to be purchased, but he failed to prevail in the end due to opposition from several EU member countries -- in part, apparently, because the EU had ordered only 300 million doses from the French company Sanofi. "That’s why buying more from a German company wasn't in the cards,” says one insider familiar with the negotiations. The European Commission has denied that version of events, saying it isn’t true that Paris took massive steps to protect Sanofi."
So the French are arguing that the EU should not buy more of an approved effective German vaccine, but should instead spend more on an unapproved French vaccine? Mad.
Agreed, but note that two other polls on the two preceding days due the Democrats ahead - in one case by 5-7 points, by Survey USA, who are highly-rated by 538. As usual in the US, the samples range from the mediocre (1400) to the feeble (600). Basically it still looks like a toss-up.
StarSports have out up their Buzzword Bingo for the Queen's Christmas Message. Of interest may be:
Commonwealth (1.83), said in 8 of the last 10 years; and Jesus Christ (2.88), said in 6 of the last 10 years.
I wouldn't suggest backing 'One', the 1/2 favourite, however. She actually uses it very rarely.
Odds on this are moving pretty quickly. Was Evens and 9/4 when I first looked (I got evens on Commonwealth but only 2.88 on JC).
Grand Children might be a good shout, but she sometimes says 'Grand child' or 'Grandmother', so that's more marginal.
What odds on 'shitstorm'?
I'd put money on Jesus though.
Yes, if it was 'Jesus, Christ, or Jesus Christ' I think it would be virtually every year she says it. The main risk is the need for the precise phrase. But even then, at odds against, it is value.
"German Health Minister Spahn pushed for more to be purchased, but he failed to prevail in the end due to opposition from several EU member countries -- in part, apparently, because the EU had ordered only 300 million doses from the French company Sanofi. "That’s why buying more from a German company wasn't in the cards,” says one insider familiar with the negotiations. The European Commission has denied that version of events, saying it isn’t true that Paris took massive steps to protect Sanofi."
It's looking a little brighter for Germany now: 1.3 million doses of the Pfizer/BioNtech vaccine by the end of this year, and another 10 million by the end of January.
The PM timing his victory/surrender (take your pick or somewhere in between) perfectly for a Christmas present, and to give his beloved optimism for the new year. Well, perfectly for his short term popularity, shit for business who have no time to prepare and have faced ridiculous uncertainty.
Yep. Pathetic.
Pathetic? Good negotiations always go to the wire.
What would be pathetic is if anyone tried to pretend we could have gotten the same deal from Barnier months ago. You're not going to try something so credulous are you?
I've explained this many times but, ok, one more for the pot. WTO was never an option for the UK. A Deal was therefore certain. The substance of the Deal was inevitable - FOM ends and something significant on Fish, being our red lines, and the EU big red line of protecting the integrity of their SM respected. We can diverge from LPF but at a price. It could have been agreed well before now. The last minute theatrics were to give Johnson the optics he wants for selling it domestically. Generates a sense of relief and great PR (for consumption by the 'not really following' and the gullible, who together are many) of "Boris" battling to the wire for Britain. This political benefit (to himself) was deemed more important than all of the unnecessary fear and chaos caused. It's bang on brand.
No you couldn't be more wrong.
Yes that was always the likely shape of the deal if it went to the wire given the respected red lines.
But that doesn't mean that a deal could have been agreed months sooner. You are completely gullible and naive if you believe that.
It couldn't have been agreed sooner because whomever was wanting to 'fold' months sooner would have paid a price for doing so. If we had insisted upon settling months sooner then Barnier would have said "ok here's my terms now sign" as he did with May.
Taking it to the wire was necessary for Barnier etc to move. Otherwise whoever is first mover pays the price for that.
What's naive is comparing this to a card game. The proposition that Johnson has wrung significant concessions from the EU that were only achievable by going right to the wire and making them genuinely scared of No Deal, is risible. But as I said before, I'm looking forward to you having a bash when the screed is in and published. Please don't make things up when you do though. That will irritate.
What we really, really need are ongoing figures on how the 500K people who have had the vaccination are getting on compared with others in the same age groups. We're not expecting the 95% protection rate for anyone till mid-January, but the first injection gives some protection and some data should be coming through, not least on whether the new variant is popping up among many who have been vaccinated (we think not, but would be nicer to know).
They seem to be far more reluctant to publish good news about the progress of the vaccine than the bad news we see every day.
What we really, really need are ongoing figures on how the 500K people who have had the vaccination are getting on compared with others in the same age groups. We're not expecting the 95% protection rate for anyone till mid-January, but the first injection gives some protection and some data should be coming through, not least on whether the new variant is popping up among many who have been vaccinated (we think not, but would be nicer to know).
Getting a small amount of vaccine first doesn't get you to normal, particularly when - as we are doing - economically inactive people are being prioritised (To reduce deaths). Getting to the herd ~ 70% or so level first will be what counts.
That's not really true, though. Vaccinating the really vulnerable has all sorts of positive effects on morale, mental health, and - very importantly - destressing health systems.
It is the old and already-sick who are most likely to end up in ICU on a ventilator, if they catch Covid. Take them out of the equation and suddenly everything is easier. And there's also less infection to spread (or mutate, as we see).
Basically vaccination is an overwhelming positive and the sooner and bigger you do it, the better; and every day counts.
Vaccinating the vulnerable presumably slashes the death rate (and hospital utilisation). We then don't care much if anyone else catches it.
Long COVID has been seen in plenty of people who didn't end up in hospital.
Amazing to think she was last prime minister 30 years ago, before a third of the country was born, yet still we remember her and want her back.
She remains our greatest PM of the last 100 years bar Churchill, transformed the country economically, won the Falklands War and played an important role in winning the Cold War and was a major figure on the world stage recognised across the globe, nobody else gets close, with Blair a distant second in recent decades as the poll confirms
The Falklands War was her own responsibility, I'm not sure how much difference she actually made regards the cold war (though she was undeniably the Iron Lady) and whilst she transformed the country economically it's again dubious how much that was for the better.
Thatcher had the guts to send a taskforce to retake the islands though regardless of errors beforehard and won the War, she and Reagan and Pope John Paul were the pivotal figures on the western side in terms of winning the Cold War.
In terms of economics she significantly reduced the number of union strikes, cut inflation and took the UK from one of the lowest gdp per capitas in western Europe to one of the highest
"German Health Minister Spahn pushed for more to be purchased, but he failed to prevail in the end due to opposition from several EU member countries -- in part, apparently, because the EU had ordered only 300 million doses from the French company Sanofi. "That’s why buying more from a German company wasn't in the cards,” says one insider familiar with the negotiations. The European Commission has denied that version of events, saying it isn’t true that Paris took massive steps to protect Sanofi."
So the French are arguing that the EU should not buy more of an approved effective German vaccine, but should instead spend more on an unapproved French vaccine? Mad.
As I said earlier this week, in the future the vaccine scheme is going to be used as one of those "this is why the EU is shit" examples by Eurosceptics in the Netherlands and the other creditor nations.
Mr. Observer, you're right that the clown will get the praise or blame for the deal, if one is agreed.
However, those who are contemplating whether Starmer is worth backing should he be the candidate for PM opposing the buffoon might consider his decision here a factor of significant weight.
Yes. Obviously. But they won't all want the same thing from him. Some will want him to support the deal, others to oppose it or abstain. Such is the Brexit conundrum for Labour. It was meant to tear the Tory Party apart. Instead it's screwed Labour and delivered the Tories a landslide. Bastard Bastard Brexit. Hate it Hate it Hate it.
For something that is not incontrovertibly a good idea, Brexit does have some wonderful side effects
Mmm. In fact a pretty terrible idea iyo. And don't demur on that. I know. I'm trying to imagine something equivalent for me. The country does something very stupid but it wins an election for Labour. Would I be happy? I really don't think I would, person of enormous integrity that I am.
Your integrity is indeed admirable, as is your modesty. On the other hand, the country does bloody stupid things all the time, so why not be pleased if they occasionally cause other matters to fall out in your favour?
What we really, really need are ongoing figures on how the 500K people who have had the vaccination are getting on compared with others in the same age groups. We're not expecting the 95% protection rate for anyone till mid-January, but the first injection gives some protection and some data should be coming through, not least on whether the new variant is popping up among many who have been vaccinated (we think not, but would be nicer to know).
Amazing to think she was last prime minister 30 years ago, before a third of the country was born, yet still we remember her and want her back.
She remains our greatest PM of the last 100 years bar Churchill, transformed the country economically, won the Falklands War and played an important role in winning the Cold War and was a major figure on the world stage recognised across the globe, nobody else gets close, with Blair a distant second in recent decades as the poll confirms
The Falklands War was her own responsibility, I'm not sure how much difference she actually made regards the cold war (though she was undeniably the Iron Lady) and whilst she transformed the country economically it's again dubious how much that was for the better.
I don't think there's any 'dubious' about it.
Whatever the merits of a left-wing economic agenda it's very clear that the UK in the late 70s wasn't seeing them. That could be because it needed time to settle down, it could be because the implementation was poor, or it could be because left-wing economics isn't wise.
There's more to life than economics though and it's certainly true that Thatcher caused change in some communities where it was far from welcome. I doubt though that there are many that would swap back. Many though would clearly have liked the future to introduce itself a little less brutally.
Mr. Observer, you're right that the clown will get the praise or blame for the deal, if one is agreed.
However, those who are contemplating whether Starmer is worth backing should he be the candidate for PM opposing the buffoon might consider his decision here a factor of significant weight.
Yes. Obviously. But they won't all want the same thing from him. Some will want him to support the deal, others to oppose it or abstain. Such is the Brexit conundrum for Labour. It was meant to tear the Tory Party apart. Instead it's screwed Labour and delivered the Tories a landslide. Bastard Bastard Brexit. Hate it Hate it Hate it.
The delicious irony is that had Labour abstained on May's deal it could have torn the Tories apart. While Labour could have pledged to build on and move further than May.
Thank goodness that didn't happen.
Love it love it love it.
Ok. That's enough LOVE/HATE. Got it out of our respective systems.
Re counterfactuals, there are lots. My favourite one is no Benn Act. What a mistake that was.
The Benn Act was preposterous. You hold a NC vote against the PM in those circs, not force him to write a letter of your choosing. An attempt to humiliate Boris, too clever by half, and seen through by the public. The best way to defeat Boris is simply to leave the door open so he can get tied up in his own contradictions.
Totally. In that particular case, make HIM choose between No Deal and an Extension. Then the latter - which it would have been - would have busted his machismo. As it was it gave him cover. It was the Quislings' Extension not his.
Comments
I'd like him to adopt a novel sort of 3-line whip: Labour MPs are free to either support or abstain on the deal, but they can't oppose it as this would be seen as attempting to 'block Brexit'. Many MPs will struggle to vote positively for a crap deal - give them the choice to abstain as a matter of conscience. As others have said, nobody will remember in a few months how Labour voted.
It is the old and already-sick who are most likely to end up in ICU on a ventilator, if they catch Covid. Take them out of the equation and suddenly everything is easier. And there's also less infection to spread (or mutate, as we see).
Basically vaccination is an overwhelming positive and the sooner and bigger you do it, the better; and every day counts.
For those economically active who are infected, two things - while asymptomatic they should be mask wearing and social distancing so massively reducing the number they infect, and once symptomatic, they should be self-isolating at home until if and when they need hospitalization.
For more vulnerable populations, they are highly likely to need prolonged medical contact, ie. one-on-one, close up medical treatment, thereby massively increasing their potential to spread the virus to healthcare workers or home care personnel.
Even with PPE, prolonged direct contact medical care, particularly that involving aerosol-generating procedures such as intubation, carries a far higher risk of onward infection than properly mask-wearing social-distancing asymptomatic economically-active persons in my view.
Hopefully we will carry over the urgency and determination with the Covid vaccines to developing and implementing the technologies that will enable us to prevent the worst of that catastrophe too.
Sounds like a mess to me and the 'even-handedness' is grossly unfair to the smaller nations.
No, it was a true story. His use of "but" was a tell of innate racism and to his credit he admitted this straightaway. And he did actually thank me for pointing it out.
Great bloke, my dad.
Farage isn't really an extreme though anyway, face of that side of the argument though he is.
from case data
from hospitalisation data
So far, anyway.
Well, duh. My point is that the restrictions, when they are removed (which they will be, because they are, you know, pretty unpopular) will result in economic growth accelerating.
Restrictions will be loosened (and ultimately removed) in 2021.
Now, you can disagree with that if you like, but you'd be wrong.
Your second point is just bunkum. Firstly, the economic carnage in US states without lockdowns is just as bad as placed with them. So, the idea that the problems are all caused by government orders is trivially and provably incorrect. Secondly, this kind of producer capture economic analysis is so dangerous. We coddle business owners in the West, which is bad for economic growth and bad for social mobility. Failure should be an option. Rich people should regularly lose everything.
When Dominique Strauss-Kahn was arrested, quite few French people I knew were outraged. Not by the charges, or by the Americans arresting him. Well, not exactly.
They were outraged that his membership of the elite hadn't got him out of trouble automatically. In their view, being a Big Wheel in France gets you privileges - which the Americans hadn't respected.
The total f*ck up of the arrest etc. was almost ignored.
https://www.astrazeneca.com/media-centre/press-releases/2020/azd1222hlr.html
Re counterfactuals, there are lots. My favourite one is no Benn Act. What a mistake that was.
However Brussels say this is unacceptable, as they're planning a ban on the use of all power units from abroad starting in 2027.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/brexit/13558940/brexit-deal-in-sight-today/
Aren't Brussels supposed to believe in as-free-as-possible trade? What happens to Teslas?
(This sounds like a repeat of the Great German Solar Panels black hole.)
https://twitter.com/charliewhelan/status/1341768991606489088
Yes that was always the likely shape of the deal if it went to the wire given the respected red lines.
But that doesn't mean that a deal could have been agreed months sooner. You are completely gullible and naive if you believe that.
It couldn't have been agreed sooner because whomever was wanting to 'fold' months sooner would have paid a price for doing so. If we had insisted upon settling months sooner then Barnier would have said "ok here's my terms now sign" as he did with May.
Taking it to the wire was necessary for Barnier etc to move. Otherwise whoever is first mover pays the price for that.
I know there are a lot of equity questions with that approach, but I think it would be more effective.
Novovax, which is in Phase 3, has stated their existing capacity is 4bn annually
But wouldn't be unexpected if they both won.
Hard to see how the Tories can win another majority under No Deal on those numbers
https://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/1341797489888944130?s=20
Amazing to think she was last prime minister 30 years ago, before a third of the country was born, yet still we remember her and want her back.
An attempt to humiliate Boris, too clever by half, and seen through by the public.
The best way to defeat Boris is simply to leave the door open so he can get tied up in his own contradictions.
Not as good an immune response as they were expecting, so back to the drawing board and earliest possible approval is Dec 2021.
"German Health Minister Spahn pushed for more to be purchased, but he failed to prevail in the end due to opposition from several EU member countries -- in part, apparently, because the EU had ordered only 300 million doses from the French company Sanofi. "That’s why buying more from a German company wasn't in the cards,” says one insider familiar with the negotiations. The European Commission has denied that version of events, saying it isn’t true that Paris took massive steps to protect Sanofi."
So many of them will have died waiting on the vaccine, they will now need to buy far fewer jabs.
This, from Ireland itself, tells us that Supercovid is now, almost certainly, stampeding around Eire
"Dr Colm Henry, HSE chief clinical officer, said recent days had seen “extraordinary growth in infection beyond what our extreme versions of modelling would have predicted.”
“We are deteriorating at a more rapid pace, in seven days, than any other country in Europe,” he said. The rate at which the virus was spreading had reached a “frightening level,” he said."
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/covid-19-spread-threatens-major-impact-on-hospital-system-says-reid-1.4444771
Here's a story from Germany. So many Covid deaths in one German region a crematorium is having trouble dealing with all the corpses. Which is odd, given the practical experience Germany has in this.... OK I won't got there.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/german-crematorium-struggles-with-covid-body-backlog-1.4444714
https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4750
The big car makers are openly talking about buying from China - rather than directly investing in battery production themselves.
Think of all the jobs in the engine/gearbox supply chain. They go and get replaced with imports....
StarSports have out up their Buzzword Bingo for the Queen's Christmas Message. Of interest may be:
Commonwealth (1.83), said in 8 of the last 10 years; and
Jesus Christ (2.88), said in 6 of the last 10 years.
I wouldn't suggest backing 'One', the 1/2 favourite, however. She actually uses it very rarely.
Odds on this are moving pretty quickly. Was Evens and 9/4 when I first looked (I got evens on Commonwealth but only 2.88 on JC).
Grand Children might be a good shout, but she sometimes says 'Grand child' or 'Grandmother', so that's more marginal.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/
She was flinty, and brave, and smart. She was happy to take unpopular but correct decisions, she was a good strategic thinker, and she had a high-powered, real world background in proper hard science. She would be the ideal Covid PM.
Sigh.
None of the above is first choice.
Pfizerr/BioNTech vaccine than Sanofi was contracted to supply. It was denied but reps from Pfizer (and Moderna) have said that 300m was the hard limit of what they were willing to buy which is also coincidentally the number ordered from Sanofi.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/dec/23/liz-truss-and-foreign-office-split-over-policy-on-china-and-uighurs
https://ir.novavax.com/news-releases/news-release-details/novavax-announces-covid-19-vaccine-manufacturing-agreement-serum
This article is from September - I am sure I read something within the last week with the higher figure, but I cannot find the reference on line now.
I'd put money on Jesus though.
(Gets coat)
https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/coronavirus-rki-spahn-impfungen-101.html
In terms of economics she significantly reduced the number of union strikes, cut inflation and took the UK from one of the lowest gdp per capitas in western Europe to one of the highest
Whatever the merits of a left-wing economic agenda it's very clear that the UK in the late 70s wasn't seeing them. That could be because it needed time to settle down, it could be because the implementation was poor, or it could be because left-wing economics isn't wise.
There's more to life than economics though and it's certainly true that Thatcher caused change in some communities where it was far from welcome. I doubt though that there are many that would swap back. Many though would clearly have liked the future to introduce itself a little less brutally.
Grrrr.