Given the time constraints, I think we should crowd-source scrutiny of any deal which emerges. We've got 10,000 lorry drivers holed up with nothing to do for the next few days, so for a 2,000 page document they should easily be able to work in teams of ten to scrutinise a couple of pages each.
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.
That latter fact on the economic damage without restrictions has been pointed out to him many times, but just does not compute, so is ignored. Sometimes with a faint cry of “Sweden, Sweden.”
The new bit has been the conspiracy theory of scientists making it up because of - well, I’m not sure. Maybe just for kicks, or to satisfy an authoritarian urge, or something, but it must be a well-organised conspiracy for such amazingly co-ordinated simulation and concerted scientific pressure worldwide. I’m now just wondering how esoteric it’s all going to get.
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.
Sounds good. I want Brexit to be associated with the Tories as much as the creation of the NHS is with Labour. Whatever achieves this works for me.
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.
Yes that is true. But it's a bit of a second-order problem.
Given the time constraints, I think we should crowd-source scrutiny of any deal which emerges. We've got 10,000 lorry drivers holed up with nothing to do for the next few days, so for a 2,000 page document they should easily be able to work in teams of ten to scrutinise a couple of pages each.
Brexit was all about sovereignty we were told. And yet our sovereign parliament is treated with contempt.
If the Oxford vaccine gets approved in a few days, all the talk of how much the UK paid for Pfizer vaccine will be basically irrelevant. We get the Oxford one at super mates rates and although the initial batch comes from Belgium, the vast majority will be made in the UK and more than enough to go around.
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).
Agreed.
There was a graph from the trial which strongly suggested that protection was very high, just 7-10 days after the initial dose.
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.
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.
Isn't the point of opposition to oppose? I reject a framing of Brexit that says this deal defines it. As we all know the 2016 campaign was notoriously vague. I did not say Labour should campaign to rejoin.
Given the time constraints, I think we should crowd-source scrutiny of any deal which emerges. We've got 10,000 lorry drivers holed up with nothing to do for the next few days, so for a 2,000 page document they should easily be able to work in teams of ten to scrutinise a couple of pages each.
Spare a thought for me.
I've been banging on for a while a deal at this time will ruin my Christmas and New Year.
Interestingly for all the amazing tech and general prep South Korea have done since SARs, I remember early on in this crisis watching an interview with a South Korean academic who said we (as in SK) won't be the ones producing a vaccine or medicines...our biotech companies and universities have had loads of money from the government and nothing ever to show.
South Korea ranks below Saudi Arabia in the genome stakes:
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.
If the deal doesn't match exactly the EUs position of months ago then clearly concessions have been wrung.
The old saying applies: you can have it done right, cheap or fast; pick two out of three.
Boris has taken it to the wire to get the best deal at cheapest price. If you want it done fast instead you need to pay the price for that.
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
And was the driving force behind the Single Market, indeed that was a central part of her economic plan.
"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.
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.
The real problem was the belief through the entire system in "managed decline"
There was an excellent book - I forget the chaps name - he tried to save the British shipbuilding industry. He encountered the phenomenon of shipyards turning down orders he had got them. They would have made a profit, but it would have meant changing working practises etc. So lots of work for management, union trouble etc.
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.
If the deal doesn't match exactly the EUs position of months ago then clearly concessions have been wrung.
The old saying applies: you can have it done right, cheap or fast; pick two out of three.
Boris has taken it to the wire to get the best deal at cheapest price. If you want it done fast instead you need to pay the price for that.
Out of interest, how do you know what the EU position was a few months ago?
Presumably you are not going to use reports from the UK media or Tory supporters to know this?
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.
Absolutely.
It is remarkable Kinabalu can't comprehend something so basic.
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.
If the deal doesn't match exactly the EUs position of months ago then clearly concessions have been wrung.
The old saying applies: you can have it done right, cheap or fast; pick two out of three.
Boris has taken it to the wire to get the best deal at cheapest price. If you want it done fast instead you need to pay the price for that.
Out of interest, how do you know what the EU position was a few months ago?
Presumably you are not going to use reports from the UK media or Tory supporters to know this?
Hasn't the EU been celebrated for being extremely open about their negotiation position?
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.
Absolutely.
It is remarkable Kinabalu can't comprehend something so basic.
And why do you not think it was the UK that did 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.
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.
The real problem was the belief through the entire system in "managed decline"
There was an excellent book - I forget the chaps name - he tried to save the British shipbuilding industry. He encountered the phenomenon of shipyards turning down orders he had got them. They would have made a profit, but it would have meant changing working practises etc. So lots of work for management, union trouble etc.
They preferred to go out of business......
'Of course we can't compete with the Americans'...
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 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.
If the deal doesn't match exactly the EUs position of months ago then clearly concessions have been wrung.
The old saying applies: you can have it done right, cheap or fast; pick two out of three.
Boris has taken it to the wire to get the best deal at cheapest price. If you want it done fast instead you need to pay the price for that.
Out of interest, how do you know what the EU position was a few months ago?
Presumably you are not going to use reports from the UK media or Tory supporters to know this?
Hasn't the EU been celebrated for being extremely open about their negotiation position?
Quite
So what are you basing the position of Europe from several months ago?
The reports in the UK media, Tory supporters or what the EU has actually been saying>
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.
Grrrr.
The problem was that the Remainers in parliament could not bring themselves to
- vote *for* Brexit - vote *against* Brexit
They repeatedly kicked the can down the road and hoped something would turn up.
They were then surprised when they were perceived to be vacillating and hoping to over turn Brexit by some legal manoeuvre.
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.
If the deal doesn't match exactly the EUs position of months ago then clearly concessions have been wrung.
The old saying applies: you can have it done right, cheap or fast; pick two out of three.
Boris has taken it to the wire to get the best deal at cheapest price. If you want it done fast instead you need to pay the price for that.
No need to go off prematurely. Let's wait for the deal. But we will expect more than trite little "old sayings".
I last spotted that one btw at our local cafe. Right next to "You don't have to be crazy to work here but it helps!"
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.
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.
Isn't the point of opposition to oppose? I reject a framing of Brexit that says this deal defines it. As we all know the 2016 campaign was notoriously vague. I did not say Labour should campaign to rejoin.
No, but salami slicing at Brexit, and moving closer would be quite popular, rejoining EHIC, Erasmus, reducing trade barriers and barriers to movement are all possible vote winners. No need to Rejoin, merely repair relationships. I don't expect any party to have a Rejoin manifesto in 2024, apart from SNP and some NI parties.
Don't forget that most voters think Brexit is a mistake, so there is a big pool to fish in.
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.
If the deal doesn't match exactly the EUs position of months ago then clearly concessions have been wrung.
The old saying applies: you can have it done right, cheap or fast; pick two out of three.
Boris has taken it to the wire to get the best deal at cheapest price. If you want it done fast instead you need to pay the price for that.
Out of interest, how do you know what the EU position was a few months ago?
Presumably you are not going to use reports from the UK media or Tory supporters to know this?
Hasn't the EU been celebrated for being extremely open about their negotiation position?
Quite
So what are you basing the position of Europe from several months ago?
The reports in the UK media, Tory supporters or what the EU has actually been saying>
I bet not the latter.
Are you suggesting the EU has not moved at all from its original position?
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.
If the deal doesn't match exactly the EUs position of months ago then clearly concessions have been wrung.
The old saying applies: you can have it done right, cheap or fast; pick two out of three.
Boris has taken it to the wire to get the best deal at cheapest price. If you want it done fast instead you need to pay the price for that.
Out of interest, how do you know what the EU position was a few months ago?
Presumably you are not going to use reports from the UK media or Tory supporters to know this?
How about reports from Barnier and the European Union's website?
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.
The real problem was the belief through the entire system in "managed decline"
There was an excellent book - I forget the chaps name - he tried to save the British shipbuilding industry. He encountered the phenomenon of shipyards turning down orders he had got them. They would have made a profit, but it would have meant changing working practises etc. So lots of work for management, union trouble etc.
They preferred to go out of business......
'Of course we can't compete with the Americans'...
Or the Koreans or the Japanese...
The interesting bit was the psychology of the refusal - change was *impossible*, so we must die.
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.
Grrrr.
The problem was that the Remainers in parliament could not bring themselves to
- vote *for* Brexit - vote *against* Brexit
They repeatedly kicked the can down the road and hoped something would turn up.
They were then surprised when they were perceived to be vacillating and hoping to over turn Brexit by some legal manoeuvre.
Could not bring themselves to put Corbyn in. That stymied everything.
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.
If the deal doesn't match exactly the EUs position of months ago then clearly concessions have been wrung.
The old saying applies: you can have it done right, cheap or fast; pick two out of three.
Boris has taken it to the wire to get the best deal at cheapest price. If you want it done fast instead you need to pay the price for that.
Out of interest, how do you know what the EU position was a few months ago?
Presumably you are not going to use reports from the UK media or Tory supporters to know this?
Hasn't the EU been celebrated for being extremely open about their negotiation position?
Also, what are you basing your knowledge of the UK position a few months ago?
How do you know how much the UK has given in that time?
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.
If the deal doesn't match exactly the EUs position of months ago then clearly concessions have been wrung.
The old saying applies: you can have it done right, cheap or fast; pick two out of three.
Boris has taken it to the wire to get the best deal at cheapest price. If you want it done fast instead you need to pay the price for that.
I have no doubt at all that we will have won concessions. Problem is of what and in exchange for what?
As Philip will know in a negotiation you work through a series of tradable positions - fish, batteries etc. You rate each one in terms of its balance. Is it High Value - Low Cost? Low Value - High Cost? High Value - High Cost or Low Value - Low Cost.
The gimmies are the High Value to you, low cost to them trades. This is really important to me, you aren't bothered, but if you agree I'll offer you this Low Cost to me High Value to you trade.
The problem with Philip's "clearly concessions have been wrung" is that concessions were always going to be made. Negotiators know their optimal deal position, their red line walk away points and the grey stuff in the middle that is OK. They aren't going to start at their walk away and have no concessions to offer, so bragging that Boris "wrung concessions" is laughable.
Lets see what we won. Lets see if our team actually understood the value of any of the trades on either side. Ordinarily you don't have to ask this, unless your team and their backers are amateur hacks who say stupid like "we hold all the cards" and actually believe it.
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.
The real problem was the belief through the entire system in "managed decline"
There was an excellent book - I forget the chaps name - he tried to save the British shipbuilding industry. He encountered the phenomenon of shipyards turning down orders he had got them. They would have made a profit, but it would have meant changing working practises etc. So lots of work for management, union trouble etc.
They preferred to go out of business......
'Of course we can't compete with the Americans'...
Or the Koreans or the Japanese...
The interesting bit was the psychology of the refusal - change was *impossible*, so we must die.
Sure. But there was a phrase used very often in the 70s and 80s - 'of course we can't compete with the Americans'
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.
Grrrr.
The problem was that the Remainers in parliament could not bring themselves to
- vote *for* Brexit - vote *against* Brexit
They repeatedly kicked the can down the road and hoped something would turn up.
They were then surprised when they were perceived to be vacillating and hoping to over turn Brexit by some legal manoeuvre.
Could not bring themselves to put Corbyn in. That stymied everything.
Many of the Remainers were quite convinced by Corbyn's behaviour that he was a Leaver, just as he had been since the 80s.
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.
Absolutely.
It is remarkable Kinabalu can't comprehend something so basic.
Now now. The poster of that comment is closer to my (correct) take, I think you will find.
It's fascinating how many Tories on here think that the way forward for Starmer and Labour is to be....... more like the Tories.
It is to be more like the Tories. On both policy and flexibility. The Tories have just won over swathes of voters and seats that they haven't won previously. How? By appealing more to these voters than Labour did. To win these seats back and then seats that are now solidly Blue Labour have to do the same in reverse.
I thought that people used to understand this basic principle of politics, at least until the absurd footballification we now suffer where its all about supporting your team no matter how stupid they are.
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.
Grrrr.
The problem was that the Remainers in parliament could not bring themselves to
- vote *for* Brexit - vote *against* Brexit
They repeatedly kicked the can down the road and hoped something would turn up.
They were then surprised when they were perceived to be vacillating and hoping to over turn Brexit by some legal manoeuvre.
Could not bring themselves to put Corbyn in. That stymied everything.
Many of the Remainers were quite convinced by Corbyn's behaviour that he was a Leaver, just as he had been since the 80s.
Yep. And they were wrong. He just wasn't interested.
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.
Absolutely.
It is remarkable Kinabalu can't comprehend something so basic.
And why do you not think it was the UK that did this?
Do you have access to the negotiations?
Both parties have compromised. Painstakingly slowly. Which is smart, competent negotiations.
The point is that without taking the months to do it inch by inch then one party would need to leap forwards in the negotiations. Which the other party wouldn't reciprocate because they'd look at the clock and say "we can wait months and they're clearly desperate".
It's fascinating how many Tories on here think that the way forward for Starmer and Labour is to be....... more like the Tories.
It is to be more like the Tories. On both policy and flexibility. The Tories have just won over swathes of voters and seats that they haven't won previously. How? By appealing more to these voters than Labour did. To win these seats back and then seats that are now solidly Blue Labour have to do the same in reverse.
I thought that people used to understand this basic principle of politics, at least until the absurd footballification we now suffer where its all about supporting your team no matter how stupid they are.
The Tories have succeeded by spending money like a drunken sailor, saying f**k business and f**k the young. That wins votes in parts of the population and country, but ain't a grand strategy for the long term.
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.
Grrrr.
The problem was that the Remainers in parliament could not bring themselves to
- vote *for* Brexit - vote *against* Brexit
They repeatedly kicked the can down the road and hoped something would turn up.
They were then surprised when they were perceived to be vacillating and hoping to over turn Brexit by some legal manoeuvre.
Could not bring themselves to put Corbyn in. That stymied everything.
Many of the Remainers were quite convinced by Corbyn's behaviour that he was a Leaver, just as he had been since the 80s.
Yep. And they were wrong. He just wasn't interested.
Yes, he was. In the sense of "that's done".
To him and his acolytes, the EU was one of the things they saw as blocking their plans.
No, we'll need to see the deal text for anything about customs pre-clearance being negotiated in the future which does solve the customs issue as it does for GB/NI trade.
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.
That's not quite true: it's still not great if you're 40 and get it. (Or 55, as Boris Johnson proved.)
But the more people vaccinated, the harder it is to spread, and we can quickly start getting hospital utilisation down.
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.
If the deal doesn't match exactly the EUs position of months ago then clearly concessions have been wrung.
The old saying applies: you can have it done right, cheap or fast; pick two out of three.
Boris has taken it to the wire to get the best deal at cheapest price. If you want it done fast instead you need to pay the price for that.
Out of interest, how do you know what the EU position was a few months ago?
Presumably you are not going to use reports from the UK media or Tory supporters to know this?
Hasn't the EU been celebrated for being extremely open about their negotiation position?
Also, what are you basing your knowledge of the UK position a few months ago?
How do you know how much the UK has given in that time?
Honestly interested.
It's clear there are concessions on both sides. That's how negotiations work.
They were largely solved last year when we ensured continuing membership of the CTC deal or no deal. That matters more for customs than anything announced today.
But today's deal will be more meaningful in ensuring there's not much that needs to be paid.
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.
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.
Isn't the point of opposition to oppose? I reject a framing of Brexit that says this deal defines it. As we all know the 2016 campaign was notoriously vague. I did not say Labour should campaign to rejoin.
No, but salami slicing at Brexit, and moving closer would be quite popular, rejoining EHIC, Erasmus, reducing trade barriers and barriers to movement are all possible vote winners. No need to Rejoin, merely repair relationships. I don't expect any party to have a Rejoin manifesto in 2024, apart from SNP and some NI parties.
Don't forget that most voters think Brexit is a mistake, so there is a big pool to fish in.
I'd support continued or renewed membership of both of those.
Small actions that may contribute to sensible reform in the EU.
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.
If the deal doesn't match exactly the EUs position of months ago then clearly concessions have been wrung.
The old saying applies: you can have it done right, cheap or fast; pick two out of three.
Boris has taken it to the wire to get the best deal at cheapest price. If you want it done fast instead you need to pay the price for that.
Out of interest, how do you know what the EU position was a few months ago?
Presumably you are not going to use reports from the UK media or Tory supporters to know this?
Hasn't the EU been celebrated for being extremely open about their negotiation position?
Also, what are you basing your knowledge of the UK position a few months ago?
How do you know how much the UK has given in that time?
Honestly interested.
It's clear there are concessions on both sides. That's how negotiations work.
There have been lots of concessions on both sides. I suspect I will be mildly miffed by fish, but broadly happy with the rest. Some of the greatest progress has been in areas which are really important, but aren't that "interesting" to journalists, such as dispute resolution.
It's fascinating how many Tories on here think that the way forward for Starmer and Labour is to be....... more like the Tories.
It is to be more like the Tories. On both policy and flexibility. The Tories have just won over swathes of voters and seats that they haven't won previously. How? By appealing more to these voters than Labour did. To win these seats back and then seats that are now solidly Blue Labour have to do the same in reverse.
I thought that people used to understand this basic principle of politics, at least until the absurd footballification we now suffer where its all about supporting your team no matter how stupid they are.
The Tories have succeeded by spending money like a drunken sailor, saying f**k business and f**k the young. That wins votes in parts of the population and country, but ain't a grand strategy for the long term.
True. Though the problem for Labour is simple but massive - their former vote has largely written off their efforts as not helping them. They voted Brexit & Tory for a decisive change and that hasn't fixed things. Instead of turning back to Labour they either won't vote or will look for increasingly radical solutions like those offered by Nigel "sink the migrants" Farage
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.
Nevertheless doesn’t incidence correlate with initial symptom severity? I am sure the Bergamo study found so.
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.
Absolutely.
It is remarkable Kinabalu can't comprehend something so basic.
He’s a former City trader - transactional mindset where speed matters
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.
That's not quite true: it's still not great if you're 40 and get it. (Or 55, as Boris Johnson proved.)
But the more people vaccinated, the harder it is to spread, and we can quickly start getting hospital utilisation down.
Data such as this -
strongly suggest that vaccinating even just the 80s and above will massively cut the death and hospitalisation rates.
They were largely solved last year when we ensured continuing membership of the CTC deal or no deal. That matters more for customs than anything announced today.
But today's deal will be more meaningful in ensuring there's not much that needs to be paid.
Yes. Being in CTC is the magic bullet that means all the customs and standards paperwork goes away. Its such a non-issue that the government haven't even bothered to build the vast truck parks they would need to store vehicles if it was an issue. Trucks will waltz through entirely unimpeded saying "CTC mate".
Or something. Meanwhile, in the real world, the deal needs to agree no customs or standards checks at any border and no tariffs. If it does then great. If it doesn't then its going to get messy very quickly.
It's fascinating how many Tories on here think that the way forward for Starmer and Labour is to be....... more like the Tories.
To be fair, Labour have tried being like Labour for ages, and that hasn't exactly worked out well for them...
10% up in the polls over the last year isn't a bad start.
Not bad after a decade. I'm sure they'll finally get it right in their 11th consecutive year out of power.
Do not get to complacent . As Blair kept saying the conservatives were just sleeping for 10 years when he was in power. Then you had to get a leader copying him, which got you into power after 13 years as a minority goverment by shafting the naive Lib dems.
It's fascinating how many Tories on here think that the way forward for Starmer and Labour is to be....... more like the Tories.
It is to be more like the Tories. On both policy and flexibility. The Tories have just won over swathes of voters and seats that they haven't won previously. How? By appealing more to these voters than Labour did. To win these seats back and then seats that are now solidly Blue Labour have to do the same in reverse.
I thought that people used to understand this basic principle of politics, at least until the absurd footballification we now suffer where its all about supporting your team no matter how stupid they are.
The Tories have succeeded by spending money like a drunken sailor, saying f**k business and f**k the young. That wins votes in parts of the population and country, but ain't a grand strategy for the long term.
True. Though the problem for Labour is simple but massive - their former vote has largely written off their efforts as not helping them. They voted Brexit & Tory for a decisive change and that hasn't fixed things. Instead of turning back to Labour they either won't vote or will look for increasingly radical solutions like those offered by Nigel "sink the migrants" Farage
I am a former Labour voter that has gone Conservative in the last few elections, and so are a lot of my friends and family. One of the things that makes it pretty unappealing to go back to Labour is the fact that Labour members constantly call us things like thick racists that want to sink the migrants. In reality, we just want a party that is willing to have moderate levels of migration and is in tune with the bulk of voters outside of the London/university bubbles.
It's fascinating how many Tories on here think that the way forward for Starmer and Labour is to be....... more like the Tories.
It is to be more like the Tories. On both policy and flexibility. The Tories have just won over swathes of voters and seats that they haven't won previously. How? By appealing more to these voters than Labour did. To win these seats back and then seats that are now solidly Blue Labour have to do the same in reverse.
I thought that people used to understand this basic principle of politics, at least until the absurd footballification we now suffer where its all about supporting your team no matter how stupid they are.
The Tories have succeeded by spending money like a drunken sailor, saying f**k business and f**k the young. That wins votes in parts of the population and country, but ain't a grand strategy for the long term.
True. Though the problem for Labour is simple but massive - their former vote has largely written off their efforts as not helping them. They voted Brexit & Tory for a decisive change and that hasn't fixed things. Instead of turning back to Labour they either won't vote or will look for increasingly radical solutions like those offered by Nigel "sink the migrants" Farage
Indeed, the Lords Grimes and (who knows on Johnson's watch) Yaxley-Lennon could be the future.
It's fascinating how many Tories on here think that the way forward for Starmer and Labour is to be....... more like the Tories.
To be fair, Labour have tried being like Labour for ages, and that hasn't exactly worked out well for them...
10% up in the polls over the last year isn't a bad start.
Not bad after a decade. I'm sure they'll finally get it right in their 11th consecutive year out of power.
Do not get to complacent . As Blair kept saying the conservatives were just sleeping for 10 years when he was in power. Then you had to get a leader copying him, which got you into power after 13 years as a minority goverment by shafting the naive Lib dems.
And the Tories will need to get their act together and oversee some things that actually go well. Otherwise Starmer simply needs to ape Biden and sit and wait
It will be quite the day when French officials report to journalists that "at the end of negotiations, we, the French have completely caved in to every British demand, and, also accepted that the British are just better, stronger, cleverer, manlier, and braver, and with lovelier wives. President Macron will be making a broadcast in a Union Jack waistcoat this evening"
It will be quite the day when French officials report to journalists that "at the end of negotiations, we, the French have completely caved in to every British demand, and, also accepted that the British are just better, stronger, cleverer, manlier, and braver, and with lovelier wives. President Macron will be making a broadcast in a Union Jack waistcoat this evening"
In so many words I think it's clear that the manhood of France expresses this in every way and every day
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.
That's not quite true: it's still not great if you're 40 and get it. (Or 55, as Boris Johnson proved.)
But the more people vaccinated, the harder it is to spread, and we can quickly start getting hospital utilisation down.
Data such as this -
strongly suggest that vaccinating even just the 80s and above will massively cut the death and hospitalisation rates.
Deaths, yes. ICU utilisation is only about 5% over 80s in the second wave (latest ICNARc report, Fig 21); I don’t know about wider hospitalisation numbers in the second wave.
Is it too early for Johnson to announce a deal? Still nine days left in the year.
The temptation to give Britain a deal for Christmas (and for life) like a puppy for a lonely child, will surely be too much for Boris to resist. Right now we are all so anxious and exhausted we would take anything, just to strike Brexit (for now) off the Something Terrible To Worry About list.
It will be quite the day when French officials report to journalists that "at the end of negotiations, we, the French have completely caved in to every British demand, and, also accepted that the British are just better, stronger, cleverer, manlier, and braver, and with lovelier wives. President Macron will be making a broadcast in a Union Jack waistcoat this evening"
You forgot the bit about recognising the Queen as monarch of France, and agreeing to pay compensation for everything since Henry V....
It's fascinating how many Tories on here think that the way forward for Starmer and Labour is to be....... more like the Tories.
You've also got the lad from a council estate in the north east suggesting that we ought to focus on issues and policies that are important for working people in the north east. But what would he know.
I have to concede to those Brexiteers on here who suggested the Machiavellian Macron was shafting Johnson over Draconian Covid sanctions on Sunday. It looked like I was wrong and he was, and it looks like it worked.
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.
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.
Isn't the point of opposition to oppose? I reject a framing of Brexit that says this deal defines it. As we all know the 2016 campaign was notoriously vague. I did not say Labour should campaign to rejoin.
No, but salami slicing at Brexit, and moving closer would be quite popular, rejoining EHIC, Erasmus, reducing trade barriers and barriers to movement are all possible vote winners. No need to Rejoin, merely repair relationships. I don't expect any party to have a Rejoin manifesto in 2024, apart from SNP and some NI parties.
Don't forget that most voters think Brexit is a mistake, so there is a big pool to fish in.
Most voters think Brexit is a mistake based on opinion polls that got the result itself wrong by several points. Plus a disproportionate share of those votes are in London and other big cities, so aren't very useful in a General Election. Getting closer to the EU on things like Erasmus would be no problem. But e.g. going back to being a rule taker on new EU laws would be unpopular in the places Labour need to win.
Lay (Bet Against) Backer's odds Backer's stake Payout Liability Brian Rose 6.31 £186.00 £987.24
Is that laying him to come 2nd, which seems to be around 6 compared to 9 for coming first. Presumably once we get close to the election his odds will go out massively?
Isabel Hardman: More and more, private conversations with backbenchers yield the phrase, “We can’t really take him at his word any more.” This is a stunning and swift loss of trust in a prime minister who in normal times would still be celebrating the stonking majority he won a year ago.
Ministers might well retort that these anti-lockdown MPs are out of step with the public, which continues to support tough measures to stop the spread of the virus. But that doesn’t wash with some senior Tories, who claim that people aren’t telling pollsters what they really think: they support more restrictions for other people, while themselves breaking the rules in ways they have privately justified to themselves. “The polling is flawed rubbish,” says one backbencher. “I suspect almost everyone is transgressing from the rules, but in their own minds they are doing this in a ‘responsible’ way – and unlike those other transgressors who are the cavalier, irresponsible ones.
Ministers might think that avoiding parliamentary scrutiny will help them dodge awkward rebellions, but one exasperated Johnson supporter argues this strategy will only build the pressure in the party until dissatisfaction with the government’s handling of Covid turns into a revolt against the prime minister’s personal leadership.
There’s no deep magic that will fix that: it’s a simple question of Johnson learning to hold his tongue and listen to his colleagues.
It will be quite the day when French officials report to journalists that "at the end of negotiations, we, the French have completely caved in to every British demand, and, also accepted that the British are just better, stronger, cleverer, manlier, and braver, and with lovelier wives. President Macron will be making a broadcast in a Union Jack waistcoat this evening"
Thankfully Brexit isn't actually a war so that won't be necessary.
It's fascinating how many Tories on here think that the way forward for Starmer and Labour is to be....... more like the Tories.
It is to be more like the Tories. On both policy and flexibility. The Tories have just won over swathes of voters and seats that they haven't won previously. How? By appealing more to these voters than Labour did. To win these seats back and then seats that are now solidly Blue Labour have to do the same in reverse.
I thought that people used to understand this basic principle of politics, at least until the absurd footballification we now suffer where its all about supporting your team no matter how stupid they are.
The Tories have succeeded by spending money like a drunken sailor, saying f**k business and f**k the young. That wins votes in parts of the population and country, but ain't a grand strategy for the long term.
True. Though the problem for Labour is simple but massive - their former vote has largely written off their efforts as not helping them. They voted Brexit & Tory for a decisive change and that hasn't fixed things. Instead of turning back to Labour they either won't vote or will look for increasingly radical solutions like those offered by Nigel "sink the migrants" Farage
I am a former Labour voter that has gone Conservative in the last few elections, and so are a lot of my friends and family. One of the things that makes it pretty unappealing to go back to Labour is the fact that Labour members constantly call us things like thick racists that want to sink the migrants. In reality, we just want a party that is willing to have moderate levels of migration and is in tune with the bulk of voters outside of the London/university bubbles.
I don't think you the voter wants to sink the migrants - that would be the Nigel on his dinghy making angry videos. As for migration I get it though I disagree - it must be frustrating that neither party can deliver what you ask for. Labour were and are pro-migration and clearly say so. The Tories were and are pro-migration but lie about not being whilst slashing the budget for the Border Force to make the job even harder.
I have to concede to those Brexiteers on here who suggested the Machiavellian Macron was shafting Johnson over Draconian Covid sanctions on Sunday. It looked like I was wrong and he was, and it looks like it worked.
You are basing this on reports from French officials?
Interestingly for all the amazing tech and general prep South Korea have done since SARs, I remember esrly on in this crisis watching an interview with a South Korean academic who said we (as in SK) won't be the ones producing a vaccine or medicines...our biotech companies and universities have had loads of money from the government and nothing ever to show.
The biotech industry in S Korea is all pretty recent - and as we’ve seen with the vaccines, they tend to be based on years, if not decades of prior research.
It is developing rapidly, though (with the help of government backing), and they have substantial and growing contract manufacturing capacity. In some respects rather more than do we.
https://www.pharmaceutical-technology.com/comment/south-korea-biologics-production/ ... In summer 2019, South Korea launched a five-year plan for biotech-related research, development, and commercialization (Emerging Market Outsourcing Report, June 2019). The cash injection aims to help South Korea capture 6% of global pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturing by 2030, and to export $50bn of products. It is also intended to prevent domestic biopharma start-ups from failing due to lack of funds, and eventually to lead to the development of home-grown blockbuster drugs.
Samsung Biologics Co. Ltd. (Seoul, Korea) and Celltrion Inc. (Seoul, Korea) are already considered world leaders, especially in the biosimilar field. There are few other biologic API manufacturers in the country: only CKD Bio Corp. (Seoul, Korea) and LG Chem Ltd. (Seoul, Korea) also offer this service for US/EU markets. The majority of the four manufacturers’ sites are in the high-tech capital of Seoul or the surrounding Gyeonggi province.
South Korean CMOs have contract manufacturing agreements for prominent COVID vaccines and therapies. SK Bioscience is one of several CMOs worldwide chosen to manufacture two COVID-19 pipeline vaccines: Novavax’s (Gaithersburg, MD, US) NVX-CoV2373 and AstraZeneca’s (Cambridge, UK) AZD1222. SK Bioscience’s site in North Gyeongsang is not yet approved by the FDA and EMA, but the companies have indicated that SK will supply global markets. Samsung Biologics has a long-term deal with Eli Lilly (Indianapolis, IN, US) to produce its pipeline monoclonal antibody bamlanivimab, and is also manufacturing COVID-19 pipeline therapies for DiNonA Inc (Seoul, South Korea) and Vir Biotechnology Inc (San Francisco, CA, US)....
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.
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.
Isn't the point of opposition to oppose? I reject a framing of Brexit that says this deal defines it. As we all know the 2016 campaign was notoriously vague. I did not say Labour should campaign to rejoin.
Labour have been telling themselves this for a decade and surprise, surprise they keep on losing. Turns out the point of opposition is to provide an alternative government that people want to vote for. But the modern Labour movement simply doesn't want to compromise with the electorate, who are too dirty and patriotic for them.
Comments
The new bit has been the conspiracy theory of scientists making it up because of - well, I’m not sure. Maybe just for kicks, or to satisfy an authoritarian urge, or something, but it must be a well-organised conspiracy for such amazingly co-ordinated simulation and concerted scientific pressure worldwide. I’m now just wondering how esoteric it’s all going to get.
I've been banging on for a while a deal at this time will ruin my Christmas and New Year.
I may have to channel my inner ERG.
The old saying applies: you can have it done right, cheap or fast; pick two out of three.
Boris has taken it to the wire to get the best deal at cheapest price. If you want it done fast instead you need to pay the price for that.
There was an excellent book - I forget the chaps name - he tried to save the British shipbuilding industry. He encountered the phenomenon of shipyards turning down orders he had got them. They would have made a profit, but it would have meant changing working practises etc. So lots of work for management, union trouble etc.
They preferred to go out of business......
Presumably you are not going to use reports from the UK media or Tory supporters to know this?
It is remarkable Kinabalu can't comprehend something so basic.
Do you have access to the negotiations?
So what are you basing the position of Europe from several months ago?
The reports in the UK media, Tory supporters or what the EU has actually been saying>
I bet not the latter.
- vote *for* Brexit
- vote *against* Brexit
They repeatedly kicked the can down the road and hoped something would turn up.
They were then surprised when they were perceived to be vacillating and hoping to over turn Brexit by some legal manoeuvre.
I last spotted that one btw at our local cafe. Right next to "You don't have to be crazy to work here but it helps!"
Don't forget that most voters think Brexit is a mistake, so there is a big pool to fish in.
The interesting bit was the psychology of the refusal - change was *impossible*, so we must die.
How do you know how much the UK has given in that time?
Honestly interested.
Wow, what an awful first headline. I hope he throws more money at the problem.
As Philip will know in a negotiation you work through a series of tradable positions - fish, batteries etc. You rate each one in terms of its balance. Is it High Value - Low Cost? Low Value - High Cost? High Value - High Cost or Low Value - Low Cost.
The gimmies are the High Value to you, low cost to them trades. This is really important to me, you aren't bothered, but if you agree I'll offer you this Low Cost to me High Value to you trade.
The problem with Philip's "clearly concessions have been wrung" is that concessions were always going to be made. Negotiators know their optimal deal position, their red line walk away points and the grey stuff in the middle that is OK. They aren't going to start at their walk away and have no concessions to offer, so bragging that Boris "wrung concessions" is laughable.
Lets see what we won. Lets see if our team actually understood the value of any of the trades on either side. Ordinarily you don't have to ask this, unless your team and their backers are amateur hacks who say stupid like "we hold all the cards" and actually believe it.
But that is *exactly* what happened in the Great Solar Panel Black Hole.
They subsized their producers to create an industry, and blocked imports, then the whole thing collapsed. They couldn't buck the market.
The far east was only of concern in toy markets.
He was just slumming it there.
I thought that people used to understand this basic principle of politics, at least until the absurd footballification we now suffer where its all about supporting your team no matter how stupid they are.
The point is that without taking the months to do it inch by inch then one party would need to leap forwards in the negotiations. Which the other party wouldn't reciprocate because they'd look at the clock and say "we can wait months and they're clearly desperate".
To him and his acolytes, the EU was one of the things they saw as blocking their plans.
But the more people vaccinated, the harder it is to spread, and we can quickly start getting hospital utilisation down.
They were largely solved last year when we ensured continuing membership of the CTC deal or no deal. That matters more for customs than anything announced today.
But today's deal will be more meaningful in ensuring there's not much that needs to be paid.
Small actions that may contribute to sensible reform in the EU.
strongly suggest that vaccinating even just the 80s and above will massively cut the death and hospitalisation rates.
Or something. Meanwhile, in the real world, the deal needs to agree no customs or standards checks at any border and no tariffs. If it does then great. If it doesn't then its going to get messy very quickly.
As Blair kept saying the conservatives were just sleeping for 10 years when he was in power.
Then you had to get a leader copying him, which got you into power after 13 years as a minority goverment by shafting the naive Lib dems.
ICU utilisation is only about 5% over 80s in the second wave (latest ICNARc report, Fig 21); I don’t know about wider hospitalisation numbers in the second wave.
Ministers might well retort that these anti-lockdown MPs are out of step with the public, which continues to support tough measures to stop the spread of the virus. But that doesn’t wash with some senior Tories, who claim that people aren’t telling pollsters what they really think: they support more restrictions for other people, while themselves breaking the rules in ways they have privately justified to themselves. “The polling is flawed rubbish,” says one backbencher. “I suspect almost everyone is transgressing from the rules, but in their own minds they are doing this in a ‘responsible’ way – and unlike those other transgressors who are the cavalier, irresponsible ones.
Ministers might think that avoiding parliamentary scrutiny will help them dodge awkward rebellions, but one exasperated Johnson supporter argues this strategy will only build the pressure in the party until dissatisfaction with the government’s handling of Covid turns into a revolt against the prime minister’s personal leadership.
There’s no deep magic that will fix that: it’s a simple question of Johnson learning to hold his tongue and listen to his colleagues.
According to the ONS, the following is the situation with deaths
0 to 4 0.53%
5 to 14 0.29%
15 to 44 1.56%
45 to 64 5.05%
65 to 74 10.72%
75 to 84 25.50%
85+ 56.34%
which means that the percentages of COVID death rates are -
45 and above 97.62%
65 and above 92.57%
75 and above 81.85%
85 and above 56.34%
So vaccinating just the over 80s will collapse the death rate
https://twitter.com/LauraHoganTV/status/1341805831562604548?s=20
I've got a bridge to sell you.
It is developing rapidly, though (with the help of government backing), and they have substantial and growing contract manufacturing capacity. In some respects rather more than do we.
https://www.pharmaceutical-technology.com/comment/south-korea-biologics-production/
... In summer 2019, South Korea launched a five-year plan for biotech-related research, development, and commercialization (Emerging Market Outsourcing Report, June 2019). The cash injection aims to help South Korea capture 6% of global pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturing by 2030, and to export $50bn of products. It is also intended to prevent domestic biopharma start-ups from failing due to lack of funds, and eventually to lead to the development of home-grown blockbuster drugs.
Samsung Biologics Co. Ltd. (Seoul, Korea) and Celltrion Inc. (Seoul, Korea) are already considered world leaders, especially in the biosimilar field. There are few other biologic API manufacturers in the country: only CKD Bio Corp. (Seoul, Korea) and LG Chem Ltd. (Seoul, Korea) also offer this service for US/EU markets. The majority of the four manufacturers’ sites are in the high-tech capital of Seoul or the surrounding Gyeonggi province.
South Korean CMOs have contract manufacturing agreements for prominent COVID vaccines and therapies. SK Bioscience is one of several CMOs worldwide chosen to manufacture two COVID-19 pipeline vaccines: Novavax’s (Gaithersburg, MD, US) NVX-CoV2373 and AstraZeneca’s (Cambridge, UK) AZD1222. SK Bioscience’s site in North Gyeongsang is not yet approved by the FDA and EMA, but the companies have indicated that SK will supply global markets. Samsung Biologics has a long-term deal with Eli Lilly (Indianapolis, IN, US) to produce its pipeline monoclonal antibody bamlanivimab, and is also manufacturing COVID-19 pipeline therapies for DiNonA Inc (Seoul, South Korea) and Vir Biotechnology Inc (San Francisco, CA, US)....
https://twitter.com/TomMcTague/status/1341813912703004674?s=20
Joking apart, both sides need to make sure they don't overhype their "victory" to make the other side's job of selling it impossible.....