Some Predictions For 2021 – politicalbetting.com

https://twitter.com/VirusesImmunity/status/1342898928497418240

ydoethur said:

Alistair said:

Since the presidential election 100,000+ have died of Covid in the USA.

Unemployment cheques run out for people today, eviction ban ends and there is a government shutdown on Monday.

The GOP are going for a burn it all down approach.

Out of curiosity, do they expect this to have no effect on the runoffs in Georgia?

Or are they just so dumb they haven’t thought of those?

Due to the joy of American political media reporting this is being presented as "Both sides" in the press.

"The Dems" or "Congress" have failed to get a relief bill through apparently. Not "McConnell refuses to bring relief bill to a vote" or "GOP vote against relief bill in the House"

https://twitter.com/mrjamesob/status/1342792249076305920

https://twitter.com/sturdyAlex/status/1343124405879189504

And they fell for it...

Good morning, Miss JGP.

Mr. Midlander, far from inevitable. If Remain hadn't run such a terrible campaign, or the EU had taken seriously the prospect we might vote to Leave, we could very easily have voted to stay in.

A great predictions piece to kick things off. A few people have already made many of my points:
1. Violence in America. They are not going to transition to the Biden Presidency without a whole load of blood.
2. The Brexit Betrayal. Never mind "remoaners" it will be leavers making the loudest noises. They were sold a magic bullet and as we go through the actual treaty and start implementing the thing it will make Osborne's Omnishambles budget look like a flawless piece of economics
3. The Ulster conundrum. On one hand Norniron has just become hot property, a one foot in each camp territory that should be able to do very very well in this decade. The conundrum is how the DUP handle this divergence. Its economically and socially Good for their electorate. But is clearly no longer a part of the main UK which they have always said is Bad for their electorate...
4. The Scottish Play. Combine the effects of points 2 and 3 and the push for independence will be something that even the truculent form of General HYUFD cannot stop. The SNP will win the 2021 election and win big - hell I might vote for them just to kick this off. At which point the fun begins...
5. I fear for party politics in England. The Brexit Betrayal will lead to people looking for other solutions. The Good News for both batshit elements of Labour and Tory Parties is that they will get an audience. The bad news for everyone else is that it will make our increasingly polarised politics increasingly polarised.

Chris said:

ydoethur said:

Chris said:

Foxy said:

IanB2 said:

Foxy said:

IanB2 said:

rcs1000 said:

IanB2 said:

rcs1000 said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/drericding/status/1343047055078551554?s=21

That's a bit misleading.

Moderna & Pfizer/BioNTech are 95% effective in preventing any signs of CV19 infection. AZN is about 66% effective by that measure.

HOWEVER, AZN also reduces the chance of really serious CV19 by around 95%, and probably reduces your infectiousness quite significantly.

If everyone has the AZN vaccine, it reduces CV19 to flu season..
Perhaps bad flu season, but flu season nonetheless.

But, still, I'd probably want to most vulnerable - or those on the front line - the get the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines.

I thought Pfizer didn’t test for asymptomatic COVID and so can’t say?

The AZN figures are for symptomatic CV19 only. They haven't released data on asymptomatic infections.

I think it’s the other way around. AZN’s data on asymptomatic carriers is why their headline figure initially looked low, and it is the other vaccines that may not have this data.

The Lancet publication on the Oxford vaccine is on symptomatic cases (131). I haven't yet seen the asymptomatic data published.

https://www.astrazeneca.com/media-centre/press-releases/2020/azd1222-oxford-phase-iii-trials-interim-analysis-results-published-in-the-lancet.html

This early Bloomberg release appears to rely on some data on aymptomatic

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-08/astra-shot-better-at-stopping-covid-than-slowing-transmission

Yes, that is new to me, but the asymptomatic data is rather disappointing in it, showing 27 asymptomatic cases in the vaccine group and 40 in the placebo arm, of 6 000 participants. Such a modest reduction in asymptomatic cases suggests that those vaccinated with the Oxford* vaccine are still possible vectors of transmission.

*quite likely with other vaccines too.

I don't know whether I'm missing something here, but the Lancet publication several weeks ago certainly included data on asymptomatic cases.

Has the data actually been published in a reputable journal?

If not, I think we should suspend judgement for now.

The peer-reviewed publication in the Lancet on 8 December is here:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32661-1/fulltext

That has 29 against 40 for the asymptomatic cases (Table 2).

Yes. It seems that the asymptomatic swabbing was done only in the cov002 study, and Scotland not included , so 29 asymptomatic cases in the vaccinated arm, 40 in the placebo.

That arm is a bit of a mess for data, but had 86 symptomatic cases, 18 in active arm, 68 in the placebo.

I think therefore to sum asymptomatic and symptomatic cases 37 in the active arm and 108 in the placebo arm.

One thing to note is that these were outcomes a minimum of 14 days after the second dose, which was a median of 84 days after the first dose in cov002. I am not sure why the booster dose was delayed so long in the majority of subjects. It seems as if the trial protocol changed a number of times mid trial, hence the messy data.

There was a fairly narrow definition of symptomatic in cov002, wider in other arms, but also meant that patients with myalgia, runny nose etc would be counted as "asymptomatic" in cov002.

Thats enough data wrangling before coffee!

Nigelb said:

ydoethur said:

Nigelb said:

.

ydoethur said:

Chris said:

The peer-reviewed publication in the Lancet on 8 December is here:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32661-1/fulltext

That has 29 against 40 for the asymptomatic cases (Table 2).

The Lancet was heavily involved in the MMR scandal, and kept promoting the pseudoscience around it long past the time when it had been conclusively demonstrated to be fraudulent. That did a huge amount of wholly unnecessary damage to vaccines in general. Indeed, it’s where much of the resistance to Covid vaccines originates. They have to the best of my knowledge neither apologised for nor withdrawn their statements on it.

I am therefore quite comfortable in saying they are not reputable. And while I like the figures they publish here, and cited them myself a few weeks back with a rider that they couldn’t be trusted given the source, I am not going to bet the house on anything published in them.

So again - has it been published by a reputable journal?

I think you need to distinguish between the journal and those who wrote the paper.
While it may be arguable that the Lancet is no longer a publication which has the reputation to add weight to a dubious paper, solid science is not tarnished simply by appearing in it.

That is not the case. There are journals, and publishing houses for the matter of that, where appearing in them is taken as a sign nowhere better would accept it, for whatever reason. It therefore does damage the credibility of the authors and their work.

It shouldn’t, in an ideal world. But the first thing any PhD student looking to publish is taught is to pick their publishers carefully.

And writing off a study simply because it appears in the Lancet is completely irrational.

I haven’t ’written it off.’ As I pointed out, I have cited it myself in discussions on the AZN vaccine. But because it comes in a journal that has been caught wilfully promoting false studies, no matter who its authors are or whatever its scientific basis is, it has to come with a health warning.

I have asked if it has been published elsewhere, precisely because the Lancet has a major credibility gap due to its past performance, and confirmation that publications who do not have that credibility gap also take it seriously would help considerably.

Or to put it another way, if a true story appeared on the Skwawkbox, or in the Daily Mail, I would want to investigate or see publications that are rigorous (e.g, the FT) republish it before accepting it as accurate. The Lancet is no different.

ydoethur said:

Nigelb said:

ydoethur said:

Nigelb said:

.

ydoethur said:

Chris said:

The peer-reviewed publication in the Lancet on 8 December is here:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32661-1/fulltext

That has 29 against 40 for the asymptomatic cases (Table 2).

The Lancet was heavily involved in the MMR scandal, and kept promoting the pseudoscience around it long past the time when it had been conclusively demonstrated to be fraudulent. That did a huge amount of wholly unnecessary damage to vaccines in general. Indeed, it’s where much of the resistance to Covid vaccines originates. They have to the best of my knowledge neither apologised for nor withdrawn their statements on it.

I am therefore quite comfortable in saying they are not reputable. And while I like the figures they publish here, and cited them myself a few weeks back with a rider that they couldn’t be trusted given the source, I am not going to bet the house on anything published in them.

So again - has it been published by a reputable journal?

I think you need to distinguish between the journal and those who wrote the paper.
While it may be arguable that the Lancet is no longer a publication which has the reputation to add weight to a dubious paper, solid science is not tarnished simply by appearing in it.

That is not the case. There are journals, and publishing houses for the matter of that, where appearing in them is taken as a sign nowhere better would accept it, for whatever reason. It therefore does damage the credibility of the authors and their work.

It shouldn’t, in an ideal world. But the first thing any PhD student looking to publish is taught is to pick their publishers carefully.

And writing off a study simply because it appears in the Lancet is completely irrational.

I haven’t ’written it off.’ As I pointed out, I have cited it myself in discussions on the AZN vaccine. But because it comes in a journal that has been caught wilfully promoting false studies, no matter who its authors are or whatever its scientific basis is, it has to come with a health warning.

I have asked if it has been published elsewhere, precisely because the Lancet has a major credibility gap due to its past performance, and confirmation that publications who do not have that credibility gap also take it seriously would help considerably.

Or to put it another way, if a true story appeared on the Skwawkbox, or in the Daily Mail, I would want to investigate or see publications that are rigorous (e.g, the FT) republish it before accepting it as accurate. The Lancet is no different.

Or you could just read the paper.

Alanbrooke said:

My prediction

By 31 December 2021 PB remainers will still be banging on about Brexit

Poor Mike

He had a “Brexit: one year on” thread scheduled and now you’ve put the kibosh on it

Nigelb said:

ydoethur said:

Nigelb said:

ydoethur said:

Nigelb said:

.

ydoethur said:

Chris said:

The peer-reviewed publication in the Lancet on 8 December is here:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32661-1/fulltext

That has 29 against 40 for the asymptomatic cases (Table 2).

The Lancet was heavily involved in the MMR scandal, and kept promoting the pseudoscience around it long past the time when it had been conclusively demonstrated to be fraudulent. That did a huge amount of wholly unnecessary damage to vaccines in general. Indeed, it’s where much of the resistance to Covid vaccines originates. They have to the best of my knowledge neither apologised for nor withdrawn their statements on it.

I am therefore quite comfortable in saying they are not reputable. And while I like the figures they publish here, and cited them myself a few weeks back with a rider that they couldn’t be trusted given the source, I am not going to bet the house on anything published in them.

So again - has it been published by a reputable journal?

I think you need to distinguish between the journal and those who wrote the paper.
While it may be arguable that the Lancet is no longer a publication which has the reputation to add weight to a dubious paper, solid science is not tarnished simply by appearing in it.

That is not the case. There are journals, and publishing houses for the matter of that, where appearing in them is taken as a sign nowhere better would accept it, for whatever reason. It therefore does damage the credibility of the authors and their work.

It shouldn’t, in an ideal world. But the first thing any PhD student looking to publish is taught is to pick their publishers carefully.

And writing off a study simply because it appears in the Lancet is completely irrational.

I haven’t ’written it off.’ As I pointed out, I have cited it myself in discussions on the AZN vaccine. But because it comes in a journal that has been caught wilfully promoting false studies, no matter who its authors are or whatever its scientific basis is, it has to come with a health warning.

I have asked if it has been published elsewhere, precisely because the Lancet has a major credibility gap due to its past performance, and confirmation that publications who do not have that credibility gap also take it seriously would help considerably.

Or to put it another way, if a true story appeared on the Skwawkbox, or in the Daily Mail, I would want to investigate or see publications that are rigorous (e.g, the FT) republish it before accepting it as accurate. The Lancet is no different.

Or you could just read the paper.

The point being that this will be one of the most widely scrutinised pieces of work published this year, which makes the journal it appears in more or less irrelevant.

Let's hope so

Charles said:

Alanbrooke said:

My prediction

By 31 December 2021 PB remainers will still be banging on about Brexit

Poor Mike

He had a “Brexit: one year on” thread scheduled and now you’ve put the kibosh on it

That would be the end of next month.

Sandpit said:

ydoethur said:

noneoftheabove said:

Foxy said:

Alanbrooke said:

My prediction

By 31 December 2021 PB remainers will still be banging on about Brexit

Pretty nailed on.

Meanwhile PB Leavers will go very quiet on sunlit uplands...🌄

No, they will be quoting 2021 GDP growth to proclaim Brexit a success, ignoring the more obvious impact of covid in 2020 in that growth number.

One key issue next year is going to be what happens with the triple lock.

Do the Tories ditch it, break their manifesto promise and piss off a large chunk of their voters?

Or do they keep it, ensuring that the worst financial hit of the pandemic goes on the young?

Incidentally, I expect them to choose option b, but I don’t think it’s quite as straightforward a tradeoff as they believe. How many parents will be in the unfortunate @Cyclefree’s position and seeking to support children going through financial shit due to Covid? I’m guessing it will be a lot. And they won’t be happy about that...

There’s going to be a whole raft of things that get screwed by growth and inflation being at 5-6%, as we may well see in 2021. As well as pensions, there’s an awful lot of public sector pay awards and welfare benefits that are index-linked in one way or another.

There will probably have to be primary legislation to defer what would be seen as excessive rises in spending, as a result of a temporary spike in growth and inflation caused by coming out of a sharp recession.

Personally I think they have to go with option A, and eat the unpopularity and rebellion in the short term. There’s really no room for increases in public spending until the finances are back under control, with the exception of infrastructure investment that creates jobs.

I think they should change the “triple lock” and replace it with the “pensions income guarantee”

Guaranteed as a fixed % of the median or mean wage with a catch up period if necessary (don’t know what the stats are)

My understanding was the purpose of the triple lock was that pensioners had fallen a long way back in purchasing power and it was designed to fix that problem.

Tres said:

Given the childish kicking and screaming over the TV license and bus passes for the most selfish generation in history I highly doubt this government will ever do anything to remove the triple lock.

Is there going to be a charge for bus passes? Admittedly I haven't used public transport for about 12 months, but until Covid-19 I normally did, and if there was a small charge, remitted for those on low incomes I wouldn't object too much.

ydoethur said:

Alistair said:

Since the presidential election 100,000+ have died of Covid in the USA.

Unemployment cheques run out for people today, eviction ban ends and there is a government shutdown on Monday.

The GOP are going for a burn it all down approach.

Out of curiosity, do they expect this to have no effect on the runoffs in Georgia?

Or are they just so dumb they haven’t thought of those?

I think this is a Trump vs GOP struggle.

Rightly or wrongly the GOP are saying the country can’t afford the $2,000 a head stimulus. Trump is being shamelessly populist. It’s easy to promise more money

CarlottaVance said:

States of Guernsey (parliament) debating the UK-EC TCA - "Much better than we could have expected to achieve" - Chief Minister recommending agreement.

Guernsey (still 6 cases) also updated COVID data today - what's this with all the UK jurisdictions (ex-England) taking a few days off in the middle of a fast moving pandemic?

I didn't think the Channel Islands were in the EU! Apart from fisheries and finance, what's their interest?

OldKingCole said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

MarqueeMark said:

ydoethur said:

noneoftheabove said:

Foxy said:

Alanbrooke said:

My prediction

By 31 December 2021 PB remainers will still be banging on about Brexit

Pretty nailed on.

Meanwhile PB Leavers will go very quiet on sunlit uplands...🌄

No, they will be quoting 2021 GDP growth to proclaim Brexit a success, ignoring the more obvious impact of covid in 2020 in that growth number.

One key issue next year is going to be what happens with the triple lock.

Do the Tories ditch it, break their manifesto promise and piss off a large chunk of their voters?

Or do they keep it, ensuring that the worst financial hit of the pandemic goes on the young?

Incidentally, I expect them to choose option b, but I don’t think it’s quite as straightforward a tradeoff as they believe. How many parents will be in the unfortunate @Cyclefree’s position and seeking to support children going through financial shit due to Covid? I’m guessing it will be a lot. And they won’t be happy about that...

I said back around March that he triple lock would be a casualty of Covid. The Govt. has perfect cover - the manifesto commitment is (along with everything else) subject to the very small-print caveat "subject always to the country not being buggered by unforeseen factors such as tsunami, meteor strike or plague...."

The raft of Covid-fighting measures taken, impacting liberty and the nation's finances, were to protect those of pension age. Sorry pensioners, but you are going to have to make your contribution to righting the nation's finances too. It can't be left to your grand-kids and their kids alone to climb out the black hole. That would not be fair.

And that will leave to some grumbles, from those who always grumble. But no great wailing of "broken promises" from the wider electorate. Becasue they will it is equitable. I really think Boris can sell that. (Although he may leave the job to Rishi....!)

The political classes obsess about the triple lock. The leg most often touted for removal is the minimum 2.5 per cent, which is unlikely to make any difference for the next couple of years if @rcs1000 is right about inflation. Inflation and perhaps even wage increases (depending how they are measured) are likely to be the driver of pension increases but these are unlikely to be delinked.

Why should the Chancellor take the political hit of breaking the triple lock if reducing it to a double or even single lock will make no saving?

Obviously I've got a dog in the fight when it comes to the triple lock, but it seems to me that while not having it would would be OK for me, and those like me, with decent pensions from our employment days and accommodation which is safe, secure and paid for, there are others in our age group to whom that doesn't apply.
Now the problem for the Chancellor is selling its removal to both those of my age group who read the Mail and those who read the Mirror, particular when you recall that we've had our funds 'reduced' by having to pay for TV licences.
I'm not sure how many pensioners don't pay income tax, but it does seem to me that a small step might be to tax the fuel benefits and the £10 Christmas bonus

There are also others in different age groups also struggling. People would consider it bizarre if we said some 33 year olds are struggling therefore all 33 year olds need a triple lock on their taxes to ensure they increase slower than everyone elses.

CarlottaVance said:

Nigelb said:

I hadn’t realised George Blake was still alive until this week.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/dec/27/george-blake-treachery-born-of-idealism-still-a-waste

Less notorious, but possibly more damaging than Philby.

I thought the BBC obit somewhat skated over the hundreds of dead people he was directly responsible for...

One might wonder what would have been the effect of catching Philby before he got involved with Albania.
And din't Blake estimate that his actions had resulted in 6-700 arrests in the DDR?

Scott_xP said:

Global Britain...

https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1343134798303342592

BTW, I think this is the problem for touring artists. They can get a visa, but the trucks full of gear will need customs paperwork for every item on board

A family member is involved, at a senior level, with Formula 1 management. I suspect the experience of this year, where much of the race electronics has been managed remotely, will ultimately be to their financial advantage.

Nigelb said:

I hadn’t realised George Blake was still alive until this week.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/dec/27/george-blake-treachery-born-of-idealism-still-a-waste

Less notorious, but possibly more damaging than Philby.

One of the ironies of the Cambridge spy ring, including Philby, is they were passing so much information to Moscow that eventually the KGB smelt a rat and suspected they were being controlled by MI5. Klaus Fuchs, the atom spy, was more obviously effective in accelerating development of the Soviet bomb but even his information was received sceptically, and they'd have got there on their own eventually anyway, such is science. There were so many spies here and in America, it must have been hard for the Russians to keep up. This is one reason the Profumo Affair was so damaging -- it was yet another security lapse following a series of spy scandals.

OldKingCole said:

CarlottaVance said:

Nigelb said:

I hadn’t realised George Blake was still alive until this week.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/dec/27/george-blake-treachery-born-of-idealism-still-a-waste

Less notorious, but possibly more damaging than Philby.

I thought the BBC obit somewhat skated over the hundreds of dead people he was directly responsible for...

One might wonder what would have been the effect of catching Philby before he got involved with Albania.
And din't Blake estimate that his actions had resulted in 6-700 arrests in the DDR?

Albania was Guy Burgess, wasn't it? (The betrayal of Albanian partisans being dropped into that country to be immediately killed.)

Sandpit said:

Charles said:

Sandpit said:

ydoethur said:

noneoftheabove said:

Foxy said:

Alanbrooke said:

My prediction

By 31 December 2021 PB remainers will still be banging on about Brexit

Pretty nailed on.

Meanwhile PB Leavers will go very quiet on sunlit uplands...🌄

No, they will be quoting 2021 GDP growth to proclaim Brexit a success, ignoring the more obvious impact of covid in 2020 in that growth number.

One key issue next year is going to be what happens with the triple lock.

Do the Tories ditch it, break their manifesto promise and piss off a large chunk of their voters?

Or do they keep it, ensuring that the worst financial hit of the pandemic goes on the young?

Incidentally, I expect them to choose option b, but I don’t think it’s quite as straightforward a tradeoff as they believe. How many parents will be in the unfortunate @Cyclefree’s position and seeking to support children going through financial shit due to Covid? I’m guessing it will be a lot. And they won’t be happy about that...

There’s going to be a whole raft of things that get screwed by growth and inflation being at 5-6%, as we may well see in 2021. As well as pensions, there’s an awful lot of public sector pay awards and welfare benefits that are index-linked in one way or another.

There will probably have to be primary legislation to defer what would be seen as excessive rises in spending, as a result of a temporary spike in growth and inflation caused by coming out of a sharp recession.

Personally I think they have to go with option A, and eat the unpopularity and rebellion in the short term. There’s really no room for increases in public spending until the finances are back under control, with the exception of infrastructure investment that creates jobs.

I think they should change the “triple lock” and replace it with the “pensions income guarantee”

Guaranteed as a fixed % of the median or mean wage with a catch up period if necessary (don’t know what the stats are)

My understanding was the purpose of the triple lock was that pensioners had fallen a long way back in purchasing power and it was designed to fix that problem.

Would that mean that, if this year median or mean wages dropped 15%, pensions would do likewise?

The issue is when, as rarely happens, we get a massive fall followed by a massive rise. Either we keep pensions constant across the two years, or we drop them then raise them. Keeping them steady this year, followed by a massive rise next year is unsustainable.

Yes.

When was the last time we had a “massive fall followed by a massive rise”?

And why should pensioners be uniquely protected when the economy is probably in a mess, unemployment is soaring and benefits being cut (as would probably be the case when you have that kind of swing in incomes)

OldKingCole said:

Scott_xP said:

Global Britain...

https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1343134798303342592

BTW, I think this is the problem for touring artists. They can get a visa, but the trucks full of gear will need customs paperwork for every item on board

A family member is involved, at a senior level, with Formula 1 management. I suspect the experience of this year, where much of the race electronics has been managed remotely, will ultimately be to their financial advantage.

F1, and the F1 teams, are masters of logistics, they can get anything delivered anywhere in the world within a day, albeit at a cost.

Temporary imports for competition can be a pain for lower level motorsport though, hopefully a sensible attitude will prevail that keeps the paperwork to a minimum for those competing internationally in any sport.

OldKingCole said:

CarlottaVance said:

States of Guernsey (parliament) debating the UK-EC TCA - "Much better than we could have expected to achieve" - Chief Minister recommending agreement.

Guernsey (still 6 cases) also updated COVID data today - what's this with all the UK jurisdictions (ex-England) taking a few days off in the middle of a fast moving pandemic?

I didn't think the Channel Islands were in the EU! Apart from fisheries and finance, what's their interest?

They weren't - but were covered by Protocol 3 of the UK accession treaty. What the TCA does is preserve things like locally agreed fishing arrangements and access of Guernsey fishing boats to French ports to offload their catch. Predictions of the UK "selling out the Channel Islands" on fisheries were wrong. Also there won't be any "displacement" of French fishing vessels from anywhere else, as any vessels fishing in Bailiwick waters has to have had a track record of fishing 2017-19. On Finance Guernsey always was a "third country" so no change there. The only "additional" ask is cooperation on VAT & Tax fraud which the Channel Islands were doing anyway. Interestingly Guernsey adopted a more flexible immigration policy than the UK (easy to do because people come on licences) - to enable easier access for staff in hospitality, agriculture and social care.

noneoftheabove said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

MarqueeMark said:

ydoethur said:

noneoftheabove said:

Foxy said:

Alanbrooke said:

My prediction

By 31 December 2021 PB remainers will still be banging on about Brexit

Pretty nailed on.

Meanwhile PB Leavers will go very quiet on sunlit uplands...🌄

No, they will be quoting 2021 GDP growth to proclaim Brexit a success, ignoring the more obvious impact of covid in 2020 in that growth number.

One key issue next year is going to be what happens with the triple lock.

Do the Tories ditch it, break their manifesto promise and piss off a large chunk of their voters?

Or do they keep it, ensuring that the worst financial hit of the pandemic goes on the young?

Incidentally, I expect them to choose option b, but I don’t think it’s quite as straightforward a tradeoff as they believe. How many parents will be in the unfortunate @Cyclefree’s position and seeking to support children going through financial shit due to Covid? I’m guessing it will be a lot. And they won’t be happy about that...

I said back around March that he triple lock would be a casualty of Covid. The Govt. has perfect cover - the manifesto commitment is (along with everything else) subject to the very small-print caveat "subject always to the country not being buggered by unforeseen factors such as tsunami, meteor strike or plague...."

The raft of Covid-fighting measures taken, impacting liberty and the nation's finances, were to protect those of pension age. Sorry pensioners, but you are going to have to make your contribution to righting the nation's finances too. It can't be left to your grand-kids and their kids alone to climb out the black hole. That would not be fair.

And that will leave to some grumbles, from those who always grumble. But no great wailing of "broken promises" from the wider electorate. Becasue they will it is equitable. I really think Boris can sell that. (Although he may leave the job to Rishi....!)

The political classes obsess about the triple lock. The leg most often touted for removal is the minimum 2.5 per cent, which is unlikely to make any difference for the next couple of years if @rcs1000 is right about inflation. Inflation and perhaps even wage increases (depending how they are measured) are likely to be the driver of pension increases but these are unlikely to be delinked.

Why should the Chancellor take the political hit of breaking the triple lock if reducing it to a double or even single lock will make no saving?

Because it is mathematically illiterate to give an ever increasing share of the pie to one group. Eventually, their share of the pie becomes bigger than the whole pie.

So what? As I said, why take the political hit of abandoning the triple lock if it will not produce any savings? It is of no matter whether it should have been introduced in the first place or will need to be reviewed ten years down the line. In 2021 the triple lock is a red herring (assuming @rcs1000 is correct).

If the Chancellor does act on pensions, more useful targets might be higher rate tax relief on contributions, salary sacrifice schemes and 25% tax-free withdrawals.

Stuartinromford said:

Nigelb said:

.

Alanbrooke said:

My prediction

By 31 December 2021 PB remainers will still be banging on about Brexit

Well you don’t seem to be able to leave it alone this morning.

And given the whole 4 year review thing, the debate ain't going anywhere for long. Is it a one-off, or will there be a review pencilled in for every 4 years? If the second, heaven help us all...

Brexit is a process where we will drift off gradually from the EU

https://twitter.com/tobyhelm/status/1343140728826974208

CarlottaVance said:

OldKingCole said:

CarlottaVance said:

States of Guernsey (parliament) debating the UK-EC TCA - "Much better than we could have expected to achieve" - Chief Minister recommending agreement.

Guernsey (still 6 cases) also updated COVID data today - what's this with all the UK jurisdictions (ex-England) taking a few days off in the middle of a fast moving pandemic?

I didn't think the Channel Islands were in the EU! Apart from fisheries and finance, what's their interest?

They weren't - but were covered by Protocol 3 of the UK accession treaty. What the TCA does is preserve things like locally agreed fishing arrangements and access of Guernsey fishing boats to French ports to offload their catch. Predictions of the UK "selling out the Channel Islands" on fisheries were wrong. Also there won't be any "displacement" of French fishing vessels from anywhere else, as any vessels fishing in Bailiwick waters has to have had a track record of fishing 2017-19. On Finance Guernsey always was a "third country" so no change there. The only "additional" ask is cooperation on VAT & Tax fraud which the Channel Islands were doing anyway. Interestingly Guernsey adopted a more flexible immigration policy than the UK (easy to do because people come on licences) - to enable easier access for staff in hospitality, agriculture and social care.

Thanks.

OldKingCole said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

OldKingCole said:

CarlottaVance said:

Nigelb said:

I hadn’t realised George Blake was still alive until this week.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/dec/27/george-blake-treachery-born-of-idealism-still-a-waste

Less notorious, but possibly more damaging than Philby.

I thought the BBC obit somewhat skated over the hundreds of dead people he was directly responsible for...

One might wonder what would have been the effect of catching Philby before he got involved with Albania.
And din't Blake estimate that his actions had resulted in 6-700 arrests in the DDR?

Albania was Guy Burgess, wasn't it? (The betrayal of Albanian partisans being dropped into that country to be immediately killed.)

Checked with Wikipedia...... they say Philby. Wasn't Burgess in the US most of the time?

Philby was already in the US working for MI6 at the British Embassy when Burgess was sent to join him.

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/tobyhelm/status/1343140728826974208

The EU is a depreciating asset in trade terms. Even if the EU were to slap tariffs on one of its best customers, its an ever less significant slice of global trade.

Scott_xP said:

Alanbrooke said:

Maybe this time the politicians will take the voters with them, but theyre not exactly renowned for their plain dealing.

BoZo is currently the best example that telling lies wins votes

Well he comes from the same stable as Cameron and Osborne so what do you expect ?

DecrepiterJohnL said:

OldKingCole said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

OldKingCole said:

CarlottaVance said:

Nigelb said:

I hadn’t realised George Blake was still alive until this week.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/dec/27/george-blake-treachery-born-of-idealism-still-a-waste

Less notorious, but possibly more damaging than Philby.

I thought the BBC obit somewhat skated over the hundreds of dead people he was directly responsible for...

One might wonder what would have been the effect of catching Philby before he got involved with Albania.
And din't Blake estimate that his actions had resulted in 6-700 arrests in the DDR?

Albania was Guy Burgess, wasn't it? (The betrayal of Albanian partisans being dropped into that country to be immediately killed.)

Checked with Wikipedia...... they say Philby. Wasn't Burgess in the US most of the time?

Philby was already in the US working for MI6 at the British Embassy when Burgess was sent to join him.

IIRC Philby went on to the Levant. Was in Beirut for a while.

OldKingCole said:

CarlottaVance said:

OldKingCole said:

CarlottaVance said:

States of Guernsey (parliament) debating the UK-EC TCA - "Much better than we could have expected to achieve" - Chief Minister recommending agreement.

Guernsey (still 6 cases) also updated COVID data today - what's this with all the UK jurisdictions (ex-England) taking a few days off in the middle of a fast moving pandemic?

I didn't think the Channel Islands were in the EU! Apart from fisheries and finance, what's their interest?

They weren't - but were covered by Protocol 3 of the UK accession treaty. What the TCA does is preserve things like locally agreed fishing arrangements and access of Guernsey fishing boats to French ports to offload their catch. Predictions of the UK "selling out the Channel Islands" on fisheries were wrong. Also there won't be any "displacement" of French fishing vessels from anywhere else, as any vessels fishing in Bailiwick waters has to have had a track record of fishing 2017-19. On Finance Guernsey always was a "third country" so no change there. The only "additional" ask is cooperation on VAT & Tax fraud which the Channel Islands were doing anyway. Interestingly Guernsey adopted a more flexible immigration policy than the UK (easy to do because people come on licences) - to enable easier access for staff in hospitality, agriculture and social care.

Thanks.

As long as said Fisherman do not invade Guernsey:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/french-fishermen-strike-peace-deal-guernsey-men-suits-and-ties-repudiate-agreement-made-after-flotilla-normandy-sails-island-harbour-talks-1500747.html

Or kidnap any customs boats:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Cherbourg_incident

contrarian said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/tobyhelm/status/1343140728826974208

The EU is a depreciating asset in trade terms. Even if the EU were to slap tariffs on one of its best customers, its an ever less significant slice of global trade.

So is the UK which is far less significant than the EU

Charles said:

Sandpit said:

Charles said:

Sandpit said:

ydoethur said:

noneoftheabove said:

Foxy said:

Alanbrooke said:

My prediction

By 31 December 2021 PB remainers will still be banging on about Brexit

Pretty nailed on.

Meanwhile PB Leavers will go very quiet on sunlit uplands...🌄

No, they will be quoting 2021 GDP growth to proclaim Brexit a success, ignoring the more obvious impact of covid in 2020 in that growth number.

One key issue next year is going to be what happens with the triple lock.

Do the Tories ditch it, break their manifesto promise and piss off a large chunk of their voters?

Or do they keep it, ensuring that the worst financial hit of the pandemic goes on the young?

Incidentally, I expect them to choose option b, but I don’t think it’s quite as straightforward a tradeoff as they believe. How many parents will be in the unfortunate @Cyclefree’s position and seeking to support children going through financial shit due to Covid? I’m guessing it will be a lot. And they won’t be happy about that...

There’s going to be a whole raft of things that get screwed by growth and inflation being at 5-6%, as we may well see in 2021. As well as pensions, there’s an awful lot of public sector pay awards and welfare benefits that are index-linked in one way or another.

There will probably have to be primary legislation to defer what would be seen as excessive rises in spending, as a result of a temporary spike in growth and inflation caused by coming out of a sharp recession.

Personally I think they have to go with option A, and eat the unpopularity and rebellion in the short term. There’s really no room for increases in public spending until the finances are back under control, with the exception of infrastructure investment that creates jobs.

I think they should change the “triple lock” and replace it with the “pensions income guarantee”

Guaranteed as a fixed % of the median or mean wage with a catch up period if necessary (don’t know what the stats are)

My understanding was the purpose of the triple lock was that pensioners had fallen a long way back in purchasing power and it was designed to fix that problem.

Would that mean that, if this year median or mean wages dropped 15%, pensions would do likewise?

The issue is when, as rarely happens, we get a massive fall followed by a massive rise. Either we keep pensions constant across the two years, or we drop them then raise them. Keeping them steady this year, followed by a massive rise next year is unsustainable.

Yes.

When was the last time we had a “massive fall followed by a massive rise”?

And why should pensioners be uniquely protected when the economy is probably in a mess, unemployment is soaring and benefits being cut (as would probably be the case when you have that kind of swing in incomes)

Oh, it’s been a while, probably WWII or even the 1920s. Rather you than me, trying to sell a huge cut in pensions followed by a huge rise though. A money-terms freeze would be a much easier sell politically.

Scott_xP said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

It's so odd, because one thing that the Tories used to really understand, and where they had a good case to make, was how this kind of annoying paperwork - "red tape" - has a deadening effect on economic activity. And yet they are presiding over the biggest explosion in costly paperwork in decades, all in the name of "free trade". It would be funny if it weren't so tragic.

It becomes painfully obvious that Brexit was never about free trade, but Xenophobia.

Adding Red tape for immigrants was always the point.

For skilled immigrants, like my wife, the red tape just got a whole load easier.

Treating everyone the same, on their own merits, no matter where in the world they come from, is the exact opposite of xenophobia.

OldKingCole said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

OldKingCole said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

OldKingCole said:

CarlottaVance said:

Nigelb said:

I hadn’t realised George Blake was still alive until this week.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/dec/27/george-blake-treachery-born-of-idealism-still-a-waste

Less notorious, but possibly more damaging than Philby.

I thought the BBC obit somewhat skated over the hundreds of dead people he was directly responsible for...

One might wonder what would have been the effect of catching Philby before he got involved with Albania.
And din't Blake estimate that his actions had resulted in 6-700 arrests in the DDR?

Albania was Guy Burgess, wasn't it? (The betrayal of Albanian partisans being dropped into that country to be immediately killed.)

Checked with Wikipedia...... they say Philby. Wasn't Burgess in the US most of the time?

Philby was already in the US working for MI6 at the British Embassy when Burgess was sent to join him.

IIRC Philby went on to the Levant. Was in Beirut for a while.

Yes, after Philby was brought home from America because he was probably the third man, even though he did not confess, he was sacked but subsequently rehired by MI6 as their man in Beirut (no proof ... decent chap ... old school tie). Even when proof did emerge, MI6 (probably deliberately) allowed Philby to flee to the Soviet Union.

But none of the Cambridge spies were received into the KGB and given the rank they'd assumed they'd earned. Only very late was Philby given any recognition, and that for propaganda purposes. Mclean got a job in publishing and Burgess never learned Russian and drank himself to death after subsisting on Fortnum and Mason hampers.

Interesting article Robert.

The German Federal elections next September are certainly the main international elections next year and will be the first since 2002 in which Merkel will not be the CDU/CSU Chancellor candidate. In my view the CDU membership will pick Friedrich Merz to be their candidate who is more rightwing and conservative than Merkel is as well as being a multimillionaire corporate lawyer and former CDU/CSU Bundestag leader from 2000 to 2002.

In terms of the election itself the CDU/CSU will almost certainly be the largest party in the Bundestag but I cannot see the Greens who are likely to overtake the SPD for second as Robert states supporting Merz for Chancellor and nor can I see a CDU led by Merz supporting the Greens leader, Annalena Baerbock for Chancellor either.

So that leaves Baerbock to become Chancellor if the Greens, SPD and Linke combined seat total is more than that for the CDU/CSU and FDP combined or Merz to become Chancellor if the CDU/CSU and FDP combined total is more than the Greens, SPD and Linke combined. Assuming too of course Merz will follow Merkel's lead and still refuse to do any deal with the AfD

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/TomMcTague/status/1343108235977510913?s=20
https://twitter.com/TomMcTague/status/1343108237437108224?s=20

Our aims were incompatible.

Morning all

The first critical election of what's going to be a busy year is the CDU leadership election now scheduled for January 15-16.

Robert's prediction on the next Bundestag election might well be dependent on the outcome of this contest. I don't know if anyone is running a book on this but I think Roettgen might be the one. He might be the compromise candidate between Laschet and Merz.

The last German poll I saw had the Union ahead by 19 points so any new Spitzenkandidat is going to have some room for manoeuvre. The opposition parties are scrapping for the minor places - Greens second at the moment.

It's extremely unlikely if not inconceivable a Government can be formed without the CDU/CSU leading and as Austria has shown, a coalition with the Greens isn't a nonstarter.

HYUFD said:

Interesting article Robert.

The German Federal elections next September are certainly the main international elections next year and will be the first since 2002 in which Merkel will not be the CDU/CSU Chancellor candidate. In my view the CDU membership will pick Friedrich Merz to be their candidate who is more rightwing and conservative than Merkel is as well as being a multimillionaire corporate lawyer and former CDU/CSU Bundestag leader from 2000 to 2002.

In terms of the election itself the CDU/CSU will almost certainly be the largest party in the Bundestag but I cannot see the Greens who are likely to overtake the SPD for second as Robert states supporting Merz for Chancellor and nor can I see a CDU led by Merz supporting the Greens leader, Annalena Baerbock for Chancellor either.

So that leaves Baerbock to become Chancellor if the Greens, SPD and Linke combined seat total is more than that for the CDU/CSU and FDP combined or Merz to become Chancellor if the CDU/CSU and FDP combined total is more than the Greens, SPD and Linke combined. Assuming too of course Merz will follow Merkel's lead and still refuse to do any deal with the AfD

I'm going to disagree with you, my friend, not on the substantive but I think Rottgen might emerge as the compromise candidate. Laschet is the social conservative candidate but much more in Merkel's style than Merz.

Freeports are being established next year, are they not. How about a major scandal of some sort in the first one, just before Christmas?

Sean_F said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Nigelb said:

I hadn’t realised George Blake was still alive until this week.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/dec/27/george-blake-treachery-born-of-idealism-still-a-waste

Less notorious, but possibly more damaging than Philby.

One of the ironies of the Cambridge spy ring, including Philby, is they were passing so much information to Moscow that eventually the KGB smelt a rat and suspected they were being controlled by MI5. Klaus Fuchs, the atom spy, was more obviously effective in accelerating development of the Soviet bomb but even his information was received sceptically, and they'd have got there on their own eventually anyway, such is science. There were so many spies here and in America, it must have been hard for the Russians to keep up. This is one reason the Profumo Affair was so damaging -- it was yet another security lapse following a series of spy scandals.

What made the KGB so effective was that so many of their illegals were true believers in communism. Spymasters are rational, cautious, objective, people by nature, so they must have found it hard to believe their luck.

I went on a British Council trip to Czechoslovakia in the late 80's. One of my hosts, during an evenings socialising told me that the love of a man for a woman was easy to understand, the love of a man for man harder, but the love of someone for communism impossible to understand.

TBH I thought rather brave of her.

another_richard said:

WhisperingOracle said:

Sandpit said:

Scott_xP said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

It's so odd, because one thing that the Tories used to really understand, and where they had a good case to make, was how this kind of annoying paperwork - "red tape" - has a deadening effect on economic activity. And yet they are presiding over the biggest explosion in costly paperwork in decades, all in the name of "free trade". It would be funny if it weren't so tragic.

It becomes painfully obvious that Brexit was never about free trade, but Xenophobia.

Adding Red tape for immigrants was always the point.

For skilled immigrants, like my wife, the red tape just got a whole load easier.

Treating everyone the same, on their own merits, no matter where in the world they come from, is the exact opposite of xenophobia.

That's far, far from what many Brexit voters want, however. Any significant uptick in non-EU migration after Brexit will cause a significant backlash for the Tories among many core Brexit voters, who were expecting the opposite.

That depends on who the immigrants are.

Few people disapprove of doctors from the third world.

Many people disapprove of turnip pickers from the first world.

But they don't want to pick the turnips themselves!

stodge said:

HYUFD said:

Interesting article Robert.

The German Federal elections next September are certainly the main international elections next year and will be the first since 2002 in which Merkel will not be the CDU/CSU Chancellor candidate. In my view the CDU membership will pick Friedrich Merz to be their candidate who is more rightwing and conservative than Merkel is as well as being a multimillionaire corporate lawyer and former CDU/CSU Bundestag leader from 2000 to 2002.

In terms of the election itself the CDU/CSU will almost certainly be the largest party in the Bundestag but I cannot see the Greens who are likely to overtake the SPD for second as Robert states supporting Merz for Chancellor and nor can I see a CDU led by Merz supporting the Greens leader, Annalena Baerbock for Chancellor either.

So that leaves Baerbock to become Chancellor if the Greens, SPD and Linke combined seat total is more than that for the CDU/CSU and FDP combined or Merz to become Chancellor if the CDU/CSU and FDP combined total is more than the Greens, SPD and Linke combined. Assuming too of course Merz will follow Merkel's lead and still refuse to do any deal with the AfD

I'm going to disagree with you, my friend, not on the substantive but I think Rottgen might emerge as the compromise candidate. Laschet is the social conservative candidate but much more in Merkel's style than Merz.

I think Robert is overestimating the Greens and under-estimating the "new broom" effect of the new CDU leader (whoever that may be). The polls have been stable sgain for a long time, and I expect to see the CDU holding the chancellery, with whatever partners seem most useful. Even without a CDU+FDP lead over Greens+SPD+Left, I can't see the latter forming government, because without even the slightest cooperation between CDU and AfD, the centre-left would struggle to get anything through.

contrarian said:

Charles said:

ydoethur said:

Alistair said:

Since the presidential election 100,000+ have died of Covid in the USA.

Unemployment cheques run out for people today, eviction ban ends and there is a government shutdown on Monday.

The GOP are going for a burn it all down approach.

Out of curiosity, do they expect this to have no effect on the runoffs in Georgia?

Or are they just so dumb they haven’t thought of those?

I think this is a Trump vs GOP struggle.

Rightly or wrongly the GOP are saying the country can’t afford the $2,000 a head stimulus. Trump is being shamelessly populist. It’s easy to promise more money

America is wide open for the left now. There is civil war in the republican party, as the header points out. When Loeffler and Purdue are heavily defeated, as they surely will be, well, all bets are off. California is so successful, apparently, they are turning the rest of America into it.

I suggest bitcoin. Since I started suggesting it, the price has risen approximately USD5000 a bitcoin. Do not bet the bank, use it as a hedge.

Wealth is flowing out of money into crypto, gold, or any other tradeable, ownable real asset.
This is a big story for 2021, and we are at the start of it.

In truth, its a a massive vote of no confidence in the debt laden, lockdown smashed, sclerotic, dogma infused economies of most of the west.

You won't hear about it in most of the mainstream media, as it runs contrary to the thrust of much of the narrative. But its happening.

One day the west's governments are going to start wondering where all the money they planned to take from voters to pay for their gargantuan policy mistakes went.

No evidence Loeffler and Purdue will be heavily defeated on the latest poll, indeed Purdue at least is likely to be re elected

https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1341913841920315392?s=20

OldKingCole said:

Sean_F said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Nigelb said:

I hadn’t realised George Blake was still alive until this week.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/dec/27/george-blake-treachery-born-of-idealism-still-a-waste

Less notorious, but possibly more damaging than Philby.

One of the ironies of the Cambridge spy ring, including Philby, is they were passing so much information to Moscow that eventually the KGB smelt a rat and suspected they were being controlled by MI5. Klaus Fuchs, the atom spy, was more obviously effective in accelerating development of the Soviet bomb but even his information was received sceptically, and they'd have got there on their own eventually anyway, such is science. There were so many spies here and in America, it must have been hard for the Russians to keep up. This is one reason the Profumo Affair was so damaging -- it was yet another security lapse following a series of spy scandals.

What made the KGB so effective was that so many of their illegals were true believers in communism. Spymasters are rational, cautious, objective, people by nature, so they must have found it hard to believe their luck.

I went on a British Council trip to Czechoslovakia in the late 80's. One of my hosts, during an evenings socialising told me that the love of a man for a woman was easy to understand, the love of a man for man harder, but the love of someone for communism impossible to understand.

TBH I thought rather brave of her.

True believers compare the grubby, sordid, real world with an idealised version of the future.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

contrarian said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/tobyhelm/status/1343140728826974208

The EU is a depreciating asset in trade terms. Even if the EU were to slap tariffs on one of its best customers, its an ever less significant slice of global trade.

This mantra of the EU being an ever smaller slice of the global economy and world trade is a good example of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing. Of course the EU is shrinking in relative terms, because of the growth of Asia and especially China. The same is true for us. But the EU will remain our biggest trading partner for decades to come, because of geography and the similarity of our economies.
Making it harder to trade with the EU doesn't make it easier to trade with anyone else - quite the opposite in fact. The EU's single market facilitates efficient value chains - which is why Germany is so successful in exporting to the Far East from inside the EU. Having a large domestic market also helps firms to achieve critical mass and become successful exporters. The FTA will preserve some of these benefits, relative to a WTO Brexit, so we should be thankful for that at least.

The EU has to run hard to win its share of UK trade, just to stand still with where they were before Brexit. That they were prepared to take that risk with Cameron shows they are not a trade organisation, but a political one. One we were right to leave, because our interests were not alligned.

We can now get back to our relationship with the EU being around trade, where we are much happier.

OldKingCole said:

another_richard said:

WhisperingOracle said:

Sandpit said:

Scott_xP said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

It's so odd, because one thing that the Tories used to really understand, and where they had a good case to make, was how this kind of annoying paperwork - "red tape" - has a deadening effect on economic activity. And yet they are presiding over the biggest explosion in costly paperwork in decades, all in the name of "free trade". It would be funny if it weren't so tragic.

It becomes painfully obvious that Brexit was never about free trade, but Xenophobia.

Adding Red tape for immigrants was always the point.

For skilled immigrants, like my wife, the red tape just got a whole load easier.

Treating everyone the same, on their own merits, no matter where in the world they come from, is the exact opposite of xenophobia.

That's far, far from what many Brexit voters want, however. Any significant uptick in non-EU migration after Brexit will cause a significant backlash for the Tories among many core Brexit voters, who were expecting the opposite.

That depends on who the immigrants are.

Few people disapprove of doctors from the third world.

Many people disapprove of turnip pickers from the first world.

But they don't want to pick the turnips themselves!

Supply and demand of labour costs.

If I was an enterprising turnip farmer I'd offer 'pick your own' organic turnips.