I dont understand New Zealand and Australias zero covid policy without vaccination.
It is madness.
Australia didn't invest well in vaccines, neither did NZ. They have programmes but they will be slow and late.
New Zealand’s first Covid-19 vaccines will arrive in the country ahead of schedule in a win for the government, which has been criticised for being too slow to procure them.
BUT....Vaccination of the wider population [will begin] in the second half of the year,” Ardern said, and was expected to take six months to a year. The vaccine would be free for all New Zealanders.
By the time they start properly, we will have done our population...by the time they finish round 1, we will have been over ours twice. Also, crucially, they aren't going to get started until after their winter.
25 people have died of Covid in New Zealand, a rate of 5 per million. Compared with 116,00 here, at a rate of 1,700 per million. You may not agree with their approach, but something's going right. I know where I'd feel safer, vaccine or not. And yes, I know the context is completely different. But given their death toll, NZ can afford to be a tad less urgent on vaccination.
It's surely the other way around, there's no reservoir of natural immunity which means they need to keep themselves isolated from the rest of the world for a lot longer. They are wholly reliant on vaccine derived herd immunity. Waiting longer gives them no gain at all.
But in the meantime they’re having a party, with all the bars open and sporting events with crowds. The only difference is the limited international travel opportunities and the lack of tourists. That’s sustainable for a lot longer than the restrictions elsewhere in the world right now, even if they do have to continue into the(ir) spring.
And schools open.
If we reopen schools too early, it will be a disaster. So Johnson may well do it, urged on by those who can’t stand the sight of their children one second more.
That isn’t exactly going to help his image, if we have a fourth wave while we are vaccinating, but he may simply not think of that.
Meanwhile in NZ and Vietnam they can carry on without too much trouble.
The Zoe App dude seems to think that 8 March is achievable without much risk and I am pretty certain BJ is not considering any earlier than that.
Not quite. A Royal Commission would be a UK one dealing with the implications of E/W/NI independence from Scotland as much as the other way round. And it would not be dealing with the indefinite future but the actual severance.
As I said, I can see how the UK might set out its negotiating parameters via a Royal Commission. As this thread has shown, it is easy to see how that would be a great recruiting sergeant for the SNP. Nothing is more calculated to dissipate bonhomie and goodwill among Scots towards the union than telling them that if they leave, the UK will try to nail them to the floor.
The Tory party purpose of a RC would be to embarrass separatist opinion if possible. Obvs. Its national purpose would be to maximise the areas of agreement, including on big ticket questions so that the Scottish voters know what it is about beyond flag waving. Neither politics nor party politics can be removed from politics.
One thing that appears to be lost on most “unionists”: the Union was intended to be a partnership between two sovereign equals in a joint endeavour.
Scotland cannot - or should not - be considered a kind of sub-national entity (“colony”) to be further devolved to.
Indeed, further devolution has its own challenges (true devomax would savagely decrease available spending in Scotland), and the asymmetrical devolution we have already clearly drives a rift between England and Scotland.
We should rather look at our truly national entities: the Bank of England, the BBC, the Supreme Court, the House of Lords, the NHS, maybe even our seat on the UNSC - and ask ourselves - what would they look like if they truly reflected a collaboration between sovereign equals?
In a scenario where the Scots had won their independence vote, there would be loads of ammo for the Conservatives to paint Labour as not to be trusted on the negotiations. How many junior Labour politicians and activists have gone into one of their English self hate rants and said about how they'd love to move to Scotland with the true progressives. The public mood would not be one for a calm and civil discussion. But it will boil down not a fucking penny to be sent North.
The real wrench for a lot of people, is the country they live in will be responsible for paying their pension, no matter where they paid taxes when they were earning it. It will be impossible to split it any other way. So the currency situation will really rear it's head here, you'd have to be truly confident in their currency plans not to be worried about any assets currently valued in GB Pounds.
What might an independent Scotland call its currency? The dollar? A bit Yankee. The Euro? Maybe too obvious. The pound? Could cause confusion. The mark? Would make sense.
Might need to be careful not to make it too overtly nationalistic given likely inflationary pressures. ‘One English pound is worth a hundred Scots’ would be embarrassing and much chanted at them at the rugby.
I dont understand New Zealand and Australias zero covid policy without vaccination.
It is madness.
Australia didn't invest well in vaccines, neither did NZ. They have programmes but they will be slow and late.
New Zealand’s first Covid-19 vaccines will arrive in the country ahead of schedule in a win for the government, which has been criticised for being too slow to procure them.
BUT....Vaccination of the wider population [will begin] in the second half of the year,” Ardern said, and was expected to take six months to a year. The vaccine would be free for all New Zealanders.
By the time they start properly, we will have done our population...by the time they finish round 1, we will have been over ours twice. Also, crucially, they aren't going to get started until after their winter.
25 people have died of Covid in New Zealand, a rate of 5 per million. Compared with 116,00 here, at a rate of 1,700 per million. You may not agree with their approach, but something's going right. I know where I'd feel safer, vaccine or not. And yes, I know the context is completely different. But given their death toll, NZ can afford to be a tad less urgent on vaccination.
It's surely the other way around, there's no reservoir of natural immunity which means they need to keep themselves isolated from the rest of the world for a lot longer. They are wholly reliant on vaccine derived herd immunity. Waiting longer gives them no gain at all.
But in the meantime they’re having a party, with all the bars open and sporting events with crowds. The only difference is the limited international travel opportunities and the lack of tourists. That’s sustainable for a lot longer than the restrictions elsewhere in the world right now, even if they do have to continue into the(ir) spring.
And schools open.
If we reopen schools too early, it will be a disaster. So Johnson may well do it, urged on by those who can’t stand the sight of their children one second more.
That isn’t exactly going to help his image, if we have a fourth wave while we are vaccinating, but he may simply not think of that.
Meanwhile in NZ and Vietnam they can carry on without too much trouble.
The Zoe App dude seems to think that 8 March is achievable without much risk and I am pretty certain BJ is not considering any earlier than that.
He did say specifically younger children so I take that to mean primary schools are low risk rather than secondaries.
Neither the word 'summoned' or 'told' is part of the original quote. If they were, they would have been included in it. Maybe you should save your scorn for things that aren't made up?
The made up words are from Christopher Hope, chief political correspondent and assistant editor of The Telegraph, the Völkischer Beobachter of the Tory Party. You should address your concerns to him, I'm sure he'd wish to know if he was letting the side down.
And for that very reason the language used should be treated with a degree of scepiticism. People of your own political persuasion are not averse to doing the same. Language used by the media is not the language used in everyday life - "boffin", "bonk" etc etc.
You mean the Tory government isn't trying to co-opt educational establishments, heritage bodies and charities to support its view of British history and nationhood, Chopper just got a bit carried away?
Phew, stand down lads.
"Co-Opt"
It’s a Lidl off.
I think he's coming to Aldi wrong conclusions.
Asda that, I don’t know why you’re surprised.
Although ‘conclusions’ is a strong word for what he comes to.
I dont understand New Zealand and Australias zero covid policy without vaccination.
It is madness.
Australia didn't invest well in vaccines, neither did NZ. They have programmes but they will be slow and late.
New Zealand’s first Covid-19 vaccines will arrive in the country ahead of schedule in a win for the government, which has been criticised for being too slow to procure them.
BUT....Vaccination of the wider population [will begin] in the second half of the year,” Ardern said, and was expected to take six months to a year. The vaccine would be free for all New Zealanders.
By the time they start properly, we will have done our population...by the time they finish round 1, we will have been over ours twice. Also, crucially, they aren't going to get started until after their winter.
25 people have died of Covid in New Zealand, a rate of 5 per million. Compared with 116,00 here, at a rate of 1,700 per million. You may not agree with their approach, but something's going right. I know where I'd feel safer, vaccine or not. And yes, I know the context is completely different. But given their death toll, NZ can afford to be a tad less urgent on vaccination.
I agree with "less urgent" but there is an element of resting on their laurels. We have suffered badly, some of which can be laid at the Government's door, but the reason the virus has been so deadly was that its novel nature. No one had any exposure or pre-existing immunity. Now, through a combination of vaccination and exposure, the UK has had a hell of a lot of exposure. Even Neil Ferguson says vaccines may be 'slightly aided' by the fact there is now quite a lot of herd immunity in London - he thinks maybe 25% or 30% of the population has now been infected in the first wave and second wave. Crudely adding to that the 20-25% of our population that has been vaccinated (there will be some overlap) we may be up to over 50% having some sort of immunity. That's consistent with his March '20 prognosis of half a million deaths without interventions. We're heading to around a third of that.
I'd rather our state of affairs had come about soley through vaccination - but that ship has sailed. The outbreaks in NZ are a warning to them - ultimately closing the border is a temporary fix because they can't close them entirely. Indeed Ahern's disappointment at Australia not agreeing a transit bubble with them suggests they don't really want to. Does NZ never want to see the AB's play again? Do they want to import anything? So they have to get a shift on.
The other thing is, the vaccines won't be perfect. Eventually NZ will take the decision to open up and that will eventually lead to people dying from COVID. Obviously the real issue is how many people get it and so long as hospitals can cope it's not a problem. But psychologically they are going to have to take that decision at some point and it won't be easy.
" it may well be much harder for the Conservatives to scare voters about the dangers of SNP influence at the next election than they presently seem to imagine." Because you think the average voter will work their way through the counterfactual process you've just set out, to realise that?
Welcome to political betting.
Occam's Razor applies here: the author started with the conclusion that he wants the Conservatives ejected from office at the next election, and worked backwards from there.
Well, I think it’s common ground among most of us (except Mysticrose) that if the Tories win the next election it will be by a very close shave.
I could see a number of outcomes for the next election. In fact, it's still not impossible the Conservatives increase their majority.
Right now, I think they'd shrink to a majority of 10-20. The next 3 years will be crucial - and fascinating, of course.
That's why we're all really here; we're politics geeks who can't shake the bug.
I dont understand New Zealand and Australias zero covid policy without vaccination.
It is madness.
It’s hardly a conscious choice to have to wait a few months for vaccines. They’ll be out there as quickly as they can be manufactured.
It is a conscious choice to be absolutely slow AF ordering and procuring the vaccines. Neither nation has vaccinated a single individual AFAIK. It’s absolutely pathetic.
Approval as well, both regulators are engaged in the idiotic "my rules are safer than yours" dick waving contest. Aiui neither county has approved any of the current vaccines and are asking for "more data" on safety and other such delaying tactics. Despite the fact that the Pfizer vaccine has been given to 30m+ people globally, AZ to 10m+ globally and Moderna to 10m+ as well without any major incidents.
Truly ridiculous. Jacinda’s Island Prison policy was looking pretty clever ... until they had another outbreak. Now panic and no other road than lockdown.
She's grovelling to China at the moment for vaccines and investment. I wouldn't be surprised if the NZ stance on delaying western vaccines is related to this.
It's the danger of getting high on your own supply.
A lot of the spin about Saint Jacinda is preposterous nonsense but they believe it and it's led to them viewing vaccines as no big deal.
Pure idiocy. The vaccines are the endgame of this, quarantines, lockdowns etc are stalling mechanisms to get us through to the vaccine. No more than that.
They’ve ordered $1bn of vaccines for a population of 5 million, which is hardly viewing them as ‘no big deal’. In consequence, they’ll be four months or so behind us in vaccinating their population. In context, it would be more accurate (though still wrong) to view that as no bid deal.
I'd love to see some polling on when the public expects: 1. The UK to have finished vaccination 2. When country X will have finished vaccination. (Where X = Germany, Ireland, Japan, New Zealand, Brazil, China say.)
My guess is that 1. will be a bit earlier than reality, but 2. will be much later.
Perhaps, also ask the question: from the same standing start last February, who has procured and delivered more vaccinations, the U.K. or the EU27?
I don't know if it's just me, or we've gone incredibly quickly from Labour doing well to Starmer must go in what seems like a week. Perhaps this is the nature of the political discourse these days - but fundamentally nothing has really changed for him in that time, has it?
I've remarked already that Dodds must go and be replaced with somebody like Reeves but that's not an issue that has come up - and likely doesn't come up anyway (Dodds is invisible).
As for the matter of Scottish Independence, Labour must oppose it at every turn and instead offer Devo Max as an alternative. If they are to Govern they must shoot down any idea the SNP would ever be in Government with them. In reality they will dare the SNP to vote them down, I suspect.
I am of the view that 2024 might result in a smaller Tory majority or a Hung Parliament.
I dont understand New Zealand and Australias zero covid policy without vaccination.
It is madness.
Australia didn't invest well in vaccines, neither did NZ. They have programmes but they will be slow and late.
New Zealand’s first Covid-19 vaccines will arrive in the country ahead of schedule in a win for the government, which has been criticised for being too slow to procure them.
BUT....Vaccination of the wider population [will begin] in the second half of the year,” Ardern said, and was expected to take six months to a year. The vaccine would be free for all New Zealanders.
By the time they start properly, we will have done our population...by the time they finish round 1, we will have been over ours twice. Also, crucially, they aren't going to get started until after their winter.
25 people have died of Covid in New Zealand, a rate of 5 per million. Compared with 116,00 here, at a rate of 1,700 per million. You may not agree with their approach, but something's going right. I know where I'd feel safer, vaccine or not. And yes, I know the context is completely different. But given their death toll, NZ can afford to be a tad less urgent on vaccination.
It's surely the other way around, there's no reservoir of natural immunity which means they need to keep themselves isolated from the rest of the world for a lot longer. They are wholly reliant on vaccine derived herd immunity. Waiting longer gives them no gain at all.
But in the meantime they’re having a party, with all the bars open and sporting events with crowds. The only difference is the limited international travel opportunities and the lack of tourists. That’s sustainable for a lot longer than the restrictions elsewhere in the world right now, even if they do have to continue into the(ir) spring.
And schools open.
If we reopen schools too early, it will be a disaster. So Johnson may well do it, urged on by those who can’t stand the sight of their children one second more.
That isn’t exactly going to help his image, if we have a fourth wave while we are vaccinating, but he may simply not think of that.
Meanwhile in NZ and Vietnam they can carry on without too much trouble.
The Zoe App dude seems to think that 8 March is achievable without much risk and I am pretty certain BJ is not considering any earlier than that.
The Zoe App dude saw no sign of a resurgence in autumn as it was happening.
I dont understand New Zealand and Australias zero covid policy without vaccination.
It is madness.
It’s hardly a conscious choice to have to wait a few months for vaccines. They’ll be out there as quickly as they can be manufactured.
It is a conscious choice to be absolutely slow AF ordering and procuring the vaccines. Neither nation has vaccinated a single individual AFAIK. It’s absolutely pathetic.
Approval as well, both regulators are engaged in the idiotic "my rules are safer than yours" dick waving contest. Aiui neither county has approved any of the current vaccines and are asking for "more data" on safety and other such delaying tactics. Despite the fact that the Pfizer vaccine has been given to 30m+ people globally, AZ to 10m+ globally and Moderna to 10m+ as well without any major incidents.
Truly ridiculous. Jacinda’s Island Prison policy was looking pretty clever ... until they had another outbreak. Now panic and no other road than lockdown.
She's grovelling to China at the moment for vaccines and investment. I wouldn't be surprised if the NZ stance on delaying western vaccines is related to this.
It's the danger of getting high on your own supply.
A lot of the spin about Saint Jacinda is preposterous nonsense but they believe it and it's led to them viewing vaccines as no big deal.
Pure idiocy. The vaccines are the endgame of this, quarantines, lockdowns etc are stalling mechanisms to get us through to the vaccine. No more than that.
They’ve ordered $1bn of vaccines for a population of 5 million, which is hardly viewing them as ‘no big deal’. In consequence, they’ll be four months or so behind us in vaccinating their population. In context, it would be more accurate (though still wrong) to view that as no bid deal.
I'd love to see some polling on when the public expects: 1. The UK to have finished vaccination 2. When country X will have finished vaccination. (Where X = Germany, Ireland, Japan, New Zealand, Brazil, China say.)
My guess is that 1. will be a bit earlier than reality, but 2. will be much later.
Yes probably. Although the full global rollout might take years, I'd have thought. Haven't seen any estimates for it.
Anyway, Stuart, you must be feeling pretty terrific having discovered that per my definitive Tory Model you are not one.
I dont understand New Zealand and Australias zero covid policy without vaccination.
It is madness.
It’s hardly a conscious choice to have to wait a few months for vaccines. They’ll be out there as quickly as they can be manufactured.
It is a conscious choice to be absolutely slow AF ordering and procuring the vaccines. Neither nation has vaccinated a single individual AFAIK. It’s absolutely pathetic.
Approval as well, both regulators are engaged in the idiotic "my rules are safer than yours" dick waving contest. Aiui neither county has approved any of the current vaccines and are asking for "more data" on safety and other such delaying tactics. Despite the fact that the Pfizer vaccine has been given to 30m+ people globally, AZ to 10m+ globally and Moderna to 10m+ as well without any major incidents.
Truly ridiculous. Jacinda’s Island Prison policy was looking pretty clever ... until they had another outbreak. Now panic and no other road than lockdown.
She's grovelling to China at the moment for vaccines and investment. I wouldn't be surprised if the NZ stance on delaying western vaccines is related to this.
It's the danger of getting high on your own supply.
A lot of the spin about Saint Jacinda is preposterous nonsense but they believe it and it's led to them viewing vaccines as no big deal.
Pure idiocy. The vaccines are the endgame of this, quarantines, lockdowns etc are stalling mechanisms to get us through to the vaccine. No more than that.
They’ve ordered $1bn of vaccines for a population of 5 million, which is hardly viewing them as ‘no big deal’. In consequence, they’ll be four months or so behind us in vaccinating their population. In context, it would be more accurate (though still wrong) to view that as no bid deal.
I'd love to see some polling on when the public expects: 1. The UK to have finished vaccination 2. When country X will have finished vaccination. (Where X = Germany, Ireland, Japan, New Zealand, Brazil, China say.)
My guess is that 1. will be a bit earlier than reality, but 2. will be much later.
Of course - and much will depend on how quickly supplies are manufactured and shipped. But it’s a little odd to argue that a country, which has ordered enough vaccine to vaccinate its population twice over, isn’t taking it at all seriously. NZ have certainly been slower off the mark that Australia, but I suspect that has something to with domestic life sciences capacity.
One thing that appears to be lost on most “unionists”: the Union was intended to be a partnership between two sovereign equals in a joint endeavour.
Scotland cannot - or should not - be considered a kind of sub-national entity (“colony”) to be further devolved to.
Indeed, further devolution has its own challenges (true devomax would savagely decrease available spending in Scotland), and the asymmetrical devolution we have already clearly drives a rift between England and Scotland.
We should rather look at our truly national entities: the Bank of England, the BBC, the Supreme Court, the House of Lords, the NHS, maybe even our seat on the UNSC - and ask ourselves - what would they look like if they truly reflected a collaboration between sovereign equals?
One thing that appears to be lost on most “unionists”: the Union was intended to be a partnership between two sovereign equals in a joint endeavour.
Scotland cannot - or should not - be considered a kind of sub-national entity (“colony”) to be further devolved to.
Indeed, further devolution has its own challenges (true devomax would savagely decrease available spending in Scotland), and the asymmetrical devolution we do have clearly drives a rift between England and Scotland.
We should rather look at our truly national entities: the Bank of England, the BBC, the Supreme Court, the House of Lords, the NHS, maybe even out seat on the UNSC - and ask ourselves - what would they look like if they truly reflected a collaboration between sovereign equals?
I have to say I think that is a very rose-tinted view of the Act of Union. It was essentially an annexation recognising the fact that Scotland after the Darien scheme had lost what little practical independence it had retained from a royal administration focussed largely on England. And it was passed for the simple reason that the Scots had no choice. It’s no coincidence there were a series of rebellions in the thirty years afterwards.
If you want to see how ‘equal’ Scotland wasin the new British Parliament, remember its 45 members were only one more than the number returned by Cornwall (which was admittedly a strange case) and less than double that of Wales.
One thing that appears to be lost on most “unionists”: the Union was intended to be a partnership between two sovereign equals in a joint endeavour.
Scotland cannot - or should not - be considered a kind of sub-national entity (“colony”) to be further devolved to.
Indeed, further devolution has its own challenges (true devomax would savagely decrease available spending in Scotland), and the asymmetrical devolution we have already clearly drives a rift between England and Scotland.
We should rather look at our truly national entities: the Bank of England, the BBC, the Supreme Court, the House of Lords, the NHS, maybe even our seat on the UNSC - and ask ourselves - what would they look like if they truly reflected a collaboration between sovereign equals?
If that was the case, why were the parliaments of England and Scotland dissolved? Neither country had any sovereignty after the union.
443,173 is the magic figure we need to record today to hit 15 million.
If The Times article is correct - which it may well not be, as it would appear no fewer than four news outlets have had conflicting leaks, which suggests to me that our government are so stupid it thinks it clever to fly kites on this - we’re going to have to do a lot better. If we’re going to reopen schools on the 15th March, we need to have about 25 million people vaccinated if we don’t want to be locked down to the end of April. That’s about three million a week or 600,000 a day.
Even at that, most of them won’t have had time to build immunity.
I couldn't disagree more.
The prevalence is being slashed at the minute dramatically. It's already down to October levels with another 4 weeks to go until the school reopenings.
By then according to Prof Spector the prevalence will be down to levels last seen in May/June last year, when the schools reopened didn't they? Plus non essential trade and hospitality will remain shut. Plus tens of millions of the most vulnerable will be vaccinated.
If we can have prevalence down to May levels, tens of millions vaccinated and hospitality closed and we can't reopen schools without needing another lockdown then something has gone catastrophically wrong.
One thing that appears to be lost on most “unionists”: the Union was intended to be a partnership between two sovereign equals in a joint endeavour.
Scotland cannot - or should not - be considered a kind of sub-national entity (“colony”) to be further devolved to.
Indeed, further devolution has its own challenges (true devomax would savagely decrease available spending in Scotland), and the asymmetrical devolution we do have clearly drives a rift between England and Scotland.
We should rather look at our truly national entities: the Bank of England, the BBC, the Supreme Court, the House of Lords, the NHS, maybe even out seat on the UNSC - and ask ourselves - what would they look like if they truly reflected a collaboration between sovereign equals?
I have to say I think that is a very rose-tinted view of the Act of Union. It was essentially an annexation recognising the fact that Scotland after the Darien scheme had lost what little practical independence it had retained from a royal administration focussed largely on England. And it was passed for the simple reason that the Scots had no choice. It’s no coincidence there were a series of rebellions in the thirty years afterwards.
If you want to see how ‘equal’ Scotland wasin the new British Parliament, remember its 45 members were only one more than the number returned by Cornwall (which was admittedly a strange case) and less than double that of Wales.
That may well be so, but it is not I think how it was sold, and not I think how it has operated at its “best”.
And it is certainly not the way to carry on if we value the Union.
Not quite. A Royal Commission would be a UK one dealing with the implications of E/W/NI independence from Scotland as much as the other way round. And it would not be dealing with the indefinite future but the actual severance.
As I said, I can see how the UK might set out its negotiating parameters via a Royal Commission. As this thread has shown, it is easy to see how that would be a great recruiting sergeant for the SNP. Nothing is more calculated to dissipate bonhomie and goodwill among Scots towards the union than telling them that if they leave, the UK will try to nail them to the floor.
The Tory party purpose of a RC would be to embarrass separatist opinion if possible. Obvs. Its national purpose would be to maximise the areas of agreement, including on big ticket questions so that the Scottish voters know what it is about beyond flag waving. Neither politics nor party politics can be removed from politics.
It is in rUK's interest, should Scotland decide to go independent, to have a good neighbour. That means trying to set up an amicable divorce settlement. rUK would do well to be open-handed in those circumstances.
But in practice, chippy English nationalism would win out in any attempt to set the terms in advance, to the great benefit of the SNP. Concessions could not be made in advance, because they would be unsaleable to the English nationalist public in advance of a vote for independence - they'd be difficult to sell afterwards, but marginally easier. You can already see the "not a ha'penny more" school of thought dominating on here. The whole thing would degenerate into an orgy of jock-bashing (no doubt with its counterpart of SNP grievance-mongering).
I dont understand New Zealand and Australias zero covid policy without vaccination.
It is madness.
Australia didn't invest well in vaccines, neither did NZ. They have programmes but they will be slow and late.
New Zealand’s first Covid-19 vaccines will arrive in the country ahead of schedule in a win for the government, which has been criticised for being too slow to procure them.
BUT....Vaccination of the wider population [will begin] in the second half of the year,” Ardern said, and was expected to take six months to a year. The vaccine would be free for all New Zealanders.
By the time they start properly, we will have done our population...by the time they finish round 1, we will have been over ours twice. Also, crucially, they aren't going to get started until after their winter.
25 people have died of Covid in New Zealand, a rate of 5 per million. Compared with 116,00 here, at a rate of 1,700 per million. You may not agree with their approach, but something's going right. I know where I'd feel safer, vaccine or not. And yes, I know the context is completely different. But given their death toll, NZ can afford to be a tad less urgent on vaccination.
It's surely the other way around, there's no reservoir of natural immunity which means they need to keep themselves isolated from the rest of the world for a lot longer. They are wholly reliant on vaccine derived herd immunity. Waiting longer gives them no gain at all.
But in the meantime they’re having a party, with all the bars open and sporting events with crowds. The only difference is the limited international travel opportunities and the lack of tourists. That’s sustainable for a lot longer than the restrictions elsewhere in the world right now, even if they do have to continue into the(ir) spring.
I think my point is that it's not an either/or policy. You can do vaccines and have tough border restrictions.
Oh indeed. But I’d rather be in the position of waiting for the vaccines while basically covid-free, than rushing to vaccinate everyone to stop the hospitals and morgues overflowing.
As we know, there should be massive surpluses in the U.K. by about June, we can happily see deliveries postponed to see other nations good at that point.
The Labour right have no actual policy ideas at all do they?
Make Tory voters feel better whilst pissing off Labour voters is not really a policy idea.
I think the polls at the moment are about as useful as they would have been in about 1944 when they probably would have shown Churchill heading for a landslide.
My understanding was Churchill was rather unpopular during the war, lots of booing as he visited bombed cities “where’s those shelters you promised us”
443,173 is the magic figure we need to record today to hit 15 million.
If The Times article is correct - which it may well not be, as it would appear no fewer than four news outlets have had conflicting leaks, which suggests to me that our government are so stupid it thinks it clever to fly kites on this - we’re going to have to do a lot better. If we’re going to reopen schools on the 15th March, we need to have about 25 million people vaccinated if we don’t want to be locked down to the end of April. That’s about three million a week or 600,000 a day.
Even at that, most of them won’t have had time to build immunity.
I couldn't disagree more.
The prevalence is being slashed at the minute dramatically. It's already down to October levels with another 4 weeks to go until the school reopenings.
By then according to Prof Spector the prevalence will be down to levels last seen in May/June last year, when the schools reopened didn't they? Plus non essential trade and hospitality will remain shut. Plus tens of millions of the most vulnerable will be vaccinated.
If we can have prevalence down to May levels, tens of millions vaccinated and hospitality closed and we can't reopen schools without needing another lockdown then something has gone catastrophically wrong.
If schools did reopen on the 22nd - which still seems to me the smart date, for a whole host of reasons - I would agree.
But the 8th is just three weeks off. Anyone jabbed next week will still be building immunity.
One thing that appears to be lost on most “unionists”: the Union was intended to be a partnership between two sovereign equals in a joint endeavour.
Scotland cannot - or should not - be considered a kind of sub-national entity (“colony”) to be further devolved to.
Indeed, further devolution has its own challenges (true devomax would savagely decrease available spending in Scotland), and the asymmetrical devolution we do have clearly drives a rift between England and Scotland.
We should rather look at our truly national entities: the Bank of England, the BBC, the Supreme Court, the House of Lords, the NHS, maybe even out seat on the UNSC - and ask ourselves - what would they look like if they truly reflected a collaboration between sovereign equals?
I have to say I think that is a very rose-tinted view of the Act of Union. It was essentially an annexation recognising the fact that Scotland after the Darien scheme had lost what little practical independence it had retained from a royal administration focussed largely on England. And it was passed for the simple reason that the Scots had no choice. It’s no coincidence there were a series of rebellions in the thirty years afterwards.
If you want to see how ‘equal’ Scotland wasin the new British Parliament, remember its 45 members were only one more than the number returned by Cornwall (which was admittedly a strange case) and less than double that of Wales.
That may well be so, but it is not I think how it was sold, and not I think how it has operated at its “best”.
And it is certainly not the way to carry on if we value the Union.
It was ‘sold’ because members of the Second Estate were paid their Darien losses if they voted for it.
Which they unhesitatingly did as a result, despite facing hostile crowds demanding they vote against.
Of course, it was much better for Scotland than the alternative - bankruptcy and a simple satellite status. And still would be, for the matter of that. But I don’t think it felt that way to most Scots.
I don't know if it's just me, or we've gone incredibly quickly from Labour doing well to Starmer must go in what seems like a week. Perhaps this is the nature of the political discourse these days - but fundamentally nothing has really changed for him in that time, has it?
I've remarked already that Dodds must go and be replaced with somebody like Reeves but that's not an issue that has come up - and likely doesn't come up anyway (Dodds is invisible).
As for the matter of Scottish Independence, Labour must oppose it at every turn and instead offer Devo Max as an alternative. If they are to Govern they must shoot down any idea the SNP would ever be in Government with them. In reality they will dare the SNP to vote them down, I suspect.
I am of the view that 2024 might result in a smaller Tory majority or a Hung Parliament.
CHB, not seen you around for a while. Welcome back. I think. Unless I have just been amazingly unobservant in which case welcome continued.
I dont understand New Zealand and Australias zero covid policy without vaccination.
It is madness.
It’s hardly a conscious choice to have to wait a few months for vaccines. They’ll be out there as quickly as they can be manufactured.
It is a conscious choice to be absolutely slow AF ordering and procuring the vaccines. Neither nation has vaccinated a single individual AFAIK. It’s absolutely pathetic.
Approval as well, both regulators are engaged in the idiotic "my rules are safer than yours" dick waving contest. Aiui neither county has approved any of the current vaccines and are asking for "more data" on safety and other such delaying tactics. Despite the fact that the Pfizer vaccine has been given to 30m+ people globally, AZ to 10m+ globally and Moderna to 10m+ as well without any major incidents.
Truly ridiculous. Jacinda’s Island Prison policy was looking pretty clever ... until they had another outbreak. Now panic and no other road than lockdown.
She's grovelling to China at the moment for vaccines and investment. I wouldn't be surprised if the NZ stance on delaying western vaccines is related to this.
It's the danger of getting high on your own supply.
A lot of the spin about Saint Jacinda is preposterous nonsense but they believe it and it's led to them viewing vaccines as no big deal.
Pure idiocy. The vaccines are the endgame of this, quarantines, lockdowns etc are stalling mechanisms to get us through to the vaccine. No more than that.
They’ve ordered $1bn of vaccines for a population of 5 million, which is hardly viewing them as ‘no big deal’. In consequence, they’ll be four months or so behind us in vaccinating their population. In context, it would be more accurate (though still wrong) to view that as no bid deal.
I'd love to see some polling on when the public expects: 1. The UK to have finished vaccination 2. When country X will have finished vaccination. (Where X = Germany, Ireland, Japan, New Zealand, Brazil, China say.)
My guess is that 1. will be a bit earlier than reality, but 2. will be much later.
Of course - and much will depend on how quickly supplies are manufactured and shipped. But it’s a little odd to argue that a country, which has ordered enough vaccine to vaccinate its population twice over, isn’t taking it at all seriously. NZ have certainly been slower off the mark that Australia, but I suspect that has something to with domestic life sciences capacity.
If you want vaccines swiftly, especially in time for your winter, the it's not enough to just order the vaccines. That's what the Europeans and Canadians have done too and they're struggling too.
If you want it done swiftly then you need to do more than just order the vaccines, especially more than ordering them late. You need to invest in manufacturing, procurement, development, distribution etc. That's what the UK, USA and India and more have done.
" it may well be much harder for the Conservatives to scare voters about the dangers of SNP influence at the next election than they presently seem to imagine." Because you think the average voter will work their way through the counterfactual process you've just set out, to realise that?
Welcome to political betting.
Occam's Razor applies here: the author started with the conclusion that he wants the Conservatives ejected from office at the next election, and worked backwards from there.
Well, I think it’s common ground among most of us (except Mysticrose) that if the Tories win the next election it will be by a very close shave.
If the past eleven years have taught us anything, it is that anything is possible. All the certainties I grew up with have disappeared.
The Zoe App dude saw no sign of a resurgence in autumn as it was happening.
Scientists get things wrong. The issue with the mantra "led by the science" is that scientists disagree and are sometimes mistaken. Ut, if you're not convinced by Prof Spector, Neil Ferguson who's modelling led to the initial lockdown agrees with him - “The lockdown has really driven down cases quite fast,” he said. “They’re basically halving about every 17 days at the moment, and that means in a month’s time – the prime minister’s talked about potentially reopening schools, we might have some bandwidth to do that, at least primary schools."
One thing that appears to be lost on most “unionists”: the Union was intended to be a partnership between two sovereign equals in a joint endeavour.
Scotland cannot - or should not - be considered a kind of sub-national entity (“colony”) to be further devolved to.
Indeed, further devolution has its own challenges (true devomax would savagely decrease available spending in Scotland), and the asymmetrical devolution we have already clearly drives a rift between England and Scotland.
We should rather look at our truly national entities: the Bank of England, the BBC, the Supreme Court, the House of Lords, the NHS, maybe even our seat on the UNSC - and ask ourselves - what would they look like if they truly reflected a collaboration between sovereign equals?
If that was the case, why were the parliaments of England and Scotland dissolved? Neither country had any sovereignty after the union.
The argument is that Scotland (and I guess in theory England) sacrificed its political independence but retained sovereignty.
I am grossly simplifying, but Scotland maintained/retained a different church, it’s own aristocracy, it’s own legal and education systems, it’s own political parties etc.
It is the centralising and standardising instincts of the 20th century that have created modern Scottish nationalism.
As a NZer, I am reminded that my own country was formally intended under the Treaty of Waitangi as a partnership between the Crown and Maori, the latter of which did not surrender its essential “kawanatanga” or sovereignty.
443,173 is the magic figure we need to record today to hit 15 million.
If The Times article is correct - which it may well not be, as it would appear no fewer than four news outlets have had conflicting leaks, which suggests to me that our government are so stupid it thinks it clever to fly kites on this - we’re going to have to do a lot better. If we’re going to reopen schools on the 15th March, we need to have about 25 million people vaccinated if we don’t want to be locked down to the end of April. That’s about three million a week or 600,000 a day.
Even at that, most of them won’t have had time to build immunity.
I couldn't disagree more.
The prevalence is being slashed at the minute dramatically. It's already down to October levels with another 4 weeks to go until the school reopenings.
By then according to Prof Spector the prevalence will be down to levels last seen in May/June last year, when the schools reopened didn't they? Plus non essential trade and hospitality will remain shut. Plus tens of millions of the most vulnerable will be vaccinated.
If we can have prevalence down to May levels, tens of millions vaccinated and hospitality closed and we can't reopen schools without needing another lockdown then something has gone catastrophically wrong.
If schools did reopen on the 22nd - which still seems to me the smart date, for a whole host of reasons - I would agree.
But the 8th is just three weeks off. Anyone jabbed next week will still be building immunity.
True but anyone jabbed next week will be in priority groups 5 and below.
Plus anyone jabbed next week, indeed anyone jabbed by the end of March, will have their vaccine protection by the end of April. Which is why an end of April lockdown is not going to happen.
I dont understand New Zealand and Australias zero covid policy without vaccination.
It is madness.
It’s hardly a conscious choice to have to wait a few months for vaccines. They’ll be out there as quickly as they can be manufactured.
NZ is fewer than 5m people, they should be talking to U.K. about buying the surplus in the summer.
Indeed. It would take less than 2 weeks UK supply at current rates to vaccinate the whole of New Zealand. I would suggest it is an easy win, particularly if we have seriously upped production and can do it without causing too much of a dent in helping third world countries.
The Labour right have no actual policy ideas at all do they?
Make Tory voters feel better whilst pissing off Labour voters is not really a policy idea.
I think the polls at the moment are about as useful as they would have been in about 1944 when they probably would have shown Churchill heading for a landslide.
My understanding was Churchill was rather unpopular during the war, lots of booing as he visited bombed cities “where’s those shelters you promised us”
In the two years leading up to the 1945 election, one poll had a Tory/Labour tie, one had a Labour lead of 6%, two had Labour leads of 8% and every single other poll (all six of them) had Labour leads in double digits. Moreover, several seats were lost in by-elections to Independent Socialist/Commonwealth party candidates ignoring the party truce.
The point was, a bit like with Corbyn 2017, not that the evidence of a Labour landslide wasn’t there but that people didn’t understand it. Even Attlee said to King George VI that he was surprised by the result.
The key pivot moment for the Scottish Play is the May election. Should parties openly pledged to independence win a majority then its politically impossible to deny a vote. Yes, as The Essicks Massiv keeps demanding, the PM could simply ignore the rebellious Scotch. Which by placing Scotland into unwilling colony status just cements even harder the movement towards their departure.
The whole point about democracy is the will of the people. In May we get to find out what that is...
That will not hold true if turnout is in the 45% - 55% range - well short of the almost 85% recorded in the 2014 Referendum.
Not quite. A Royal Commission would be a UK one dealing with the implications of E/W/NI independence from Scotland as much as the other way round. And it would not be dealing with the indefinite future but the actual severance.
As I said, I can see how the UK might set out its negotiating parameters via a Royal Commission. As this thread has shown, it is easy to see how that would be a great recruiting sergeant for the SNP. Nothing is more calculated to dissipate bonhomie and goodwill among Scots towards the union than telling them that if they leave, the UK will try to nail them to the floor.
The Tory party purpose of a RC would be to embarrass separatist opinion if possible. Obvs. Its national purpose would be to maximise the areas of agreement, including on big ticket questions so that the Scottish voters know what it is about beyond flag waving. Neither politics nor party politics can be removed from politics.
It is in rUK's interest, should Scotland decide to go independent, to have a good neighbour. That means trying to set up an amicable divorce settlement. rUK would do well to be open-handed in those circumstances.
Do you think the EU took that approach in the BREXIT negotiations?
Not quite. A Royal Commission would be a UK one dealing with the implications of E/W/NI independence from Scotland as much as the other way round. And it would not be dealing with the indefinite future but the actual severance.
As I said, I can see how the UK might set out its negotiating parameters via a Royal Commission. As this thread has shown, it is easy to see how that would be a great recruiting sergeant for the SNP. Nothing is more calculated to dissipate bonhomie and goodwill among Scots towards the union than telling them that if they leave, the UK will try to nail them to the floor.
The Tory party purpose of a RC would be to embarrass separatist opinion if possible. Obvs. Its national purpose would be to maximise the areas of agreement, including on big ticket questions so that the Scottish voters know what it is about beyond flag waving. Neither politics nor party politics can be removed from politics.
It is in rUK's interest, should Scotland decide to go independent, to have a good neighbour. That means trying to set up an amicable divorce settlement. rUK would do well to be open-handed in those circumstances.
But in practice, chippy English nationalism would win out in any attempt to set the terms in advance, to the great benefit of the SNP. Concessions could not be made in advance, because they would be unsaleable to the English nationalist public in advance of a vote for independence - they'd be difficult to sell afterwards, but marginally easier. You can already see the "not a ha'penny more" school of thought dominating on here. The whole thing would degenerate into an orgy of jock-bashing (no doubt with its counterpart of SNP grievance-mongering).
It is in EU's interest, should the UK to go independent, to have a good neighbour. That means trying to set up an amicable divorce settlement. The EU would do well to be open-handed in those circumstances.
But in practice, chippy EU bruised egos would win out in any attempt to set the terms in advance, to the great benefit of the UK Brexiteers. Concessions could not be made in advance, because they would be unsaleable to the European public in advance of a vote for independence - they'd be difficult to sell afterwards, but marginally easier. You can already see the "not a ha'penny more" school of thought dominating within the EU. The whole thing would degenerate into an orgy of Britain-bashing (no doubt with its counterpart of Brexiteer grievance-mongering).
I dont understand New Zealand and Australias zero covid policy without vaccination.
It is madness.
Australia didn't invest well in vaccines, neither did NZ. They have programmes but they will be slow and late.
New Zealand’s first Covid-19 vaccines will arrive in the country ahead of schedule in a win for the government, which has been criticised for being too slow to procure them.
BUT....Vaccination of the wider population [will begin] in the second half of the year,” Ardern said, and was expected to take six months to a year. The vaccine would be free for all New Zealanders.
By the time they start properly, we will have done our population...by the time they finish round 1, we will have been over ours twice. Also, crucially, they aren't going to get started until after their winter.
25 people have died of Covid in New Zealand, a rate of 5 per million. Compared with 116,00 here, at a rate of 1,700 per million. You may not agree with their approach, but something's going right. I know where I'd feel safer, vaccine or not. And yes, I know the context is completely different. But given their death toll, NZ can afford to be a tad less urgent on vaccination.
It's surely the other way around, there's no reservoir of natural immunity which means they need to keep themselves isolated from the rest of the world for a lot longer. They are wholly reliant on vaccine derived herd immunity. Waiting longer gives them no gain at all.
But in the meantime they’re having a party, with all the bars open and sporting events with crowds. The only difference is the limited international travel opportunities and the lack of tourists. That’s sustainable for a lot longer than the restrictions elsewhere in the world right now, even if they do have to continue into the(ir) spring.
I think my point is that it's not an either/or policy. You can do vaccines and have tough border restrictions.
It's a bit like the good health & vit D vs masks & vaccines debate. You can have it all. Fwiw the tough border restrictions providing you got them in early enough look to be THE most effective anti Covid measure (Till your pop is fully vaxed up which will be the second in the long run)
Not quite. A Royal Commission would be a UK one dealing with the implications of E/W/NI independence from Scotland as much as the other way round. And it would not be dealing with the indefinite future but the actual severance.
As I said, I can see how the UK might set out its negotiating parameters via a Royal Commission. As this thread has shown, it is easy to see how that would be a great recruiting sergeant for the SNP. Nothing is more calculated to dissipate bonhomie and goodwill among Scots towards the union than telling them that if they leave, the UK will try to nail them to the floor.
The Tory party purpose of a RC would be to embarrass separatist opinion if possible. Obvs. Its national purpose would be to maximise the areas of agreement, including on big ticket questions so that the Scottish voters know what it is about beyond flag waving. Neither politics nor party politics can be removed from politics.
It is in rUK's interest, should Scotland decide to go independent, to have a good neighbour. That means trying to set up an amicable divorce settlement. rUK would do well to be open-handed in those circumstances.
But in practice, chippy English nationalism would win out in any attempt to set the terms in advance, to the great benefit of the SNP. Concessions could not be made in advance, because they would be unsaleable to the English nationalist public in advance of a vote for independence - they'd be difficult to sell afterwards, but marginally easier. You can already see the "not a ha'penny more" school of thought dominating on here. The whole thing would degenerate into an orgy of jock-bashing (no doubt with its counterpart of SNP grievance-mongering).
It is in EU's interest, should the UK to go independent, to have a good neighbour. That means trying to set up an amicable divorce settlement. The EU would do well to be open-handed in those circumstances.
But in practice, chippy EU bruised egos would win out in any attempt to set the terms in advance, to the great benefit of the UK Brexiteers. Concessions could not be made in advance, because they would be unsaleable to the European public in advance of a vote for independence - they'd be difficult to sell afterwards, but marginally easier. You can already see the "not a ha'penny more" school of thought dominating within the EU. The whole thing would degenerate into an orgy of Britain-bashing (no doubt with its counterpart of Brexiteer grievance-mongering).
You are both right which is why separatism of all flavours is largely a project for haters and wreckers.
The Zoe App dude saw no sign of a resurgence in autumn as it was happening.
Scientists get things wrong. The issue with the mantra "led by the science" is that scientists disagree and are sometimes mistaken.
It is not so much scientists get things wrong, but scientist are asked to do the impossible ...
In the absence of reliable data, scientists just cannot make a clear prediction from a model, other than with large uncertainties.
In March 2020. no-one could have predicted the course of the pandemic.
The countries that guessed right (NZ or Norway) did not use science to get what turned out to be the right answer. They had fearful, panicking leaders.
Not quite. A Royal Commission would be a UK one dealing with the implications of E/W/NI independence from Scotland as much as the other way round. And it would not be dealing with the indefinite future but the actual severance.
As I said, I can see how the UK might set out its negotiating parameters via a Royal Commission. As this thread has shown, it is easy to see how that would be a great recruiting sergeant for the SNP. Nothing is more calculated to dissipate bonhomie and goodwill among Scots towards the union than telling them that if they leave, the UK will try to nail them to the floor.
The Tory party purpose of a RC would be to embarrass separatist opinion if possible. Obvs. Its national purpose would be to maximise the areas of agreement, including on big ticket questions so that the Scottish voters know what it is about beyond flag waving. Neither politics nor party politics can be removed from politics.
It is in rUK's interest, should Scotland decide to go independent, to have a good neighbour. That means trying to set up an amicable divorce settlement. rUK would do well to be open-handed in those circumstances.
But in practice, chippy English nationalism would win out in any attempt to set the terms in advance, to the great benefit of the SNP. Concessions could not be made in advance, because they would be unsaleable to the English nationalist public in advance of a vote for independence - they'd be difficult to sell afterwards, but marginally easier. You can already see the "not a ha'penny more" school of thought dominating on here. The whole thing would degenerate into an orgy of jock-bashing (no doubt with its counterpart of SNP grievance-mongering).
It is in EU's interest, should the UK to go independent, to have a good neighbour. That means trying to set up an amicable divorce settlement. The EU would do well to be open-handed in those circumstances.
But in practice, chippy EU bruised egos would win out in any attempt to set the terms in advance, to the great benefit of the UK Brexiteers. Concessions could not be made in advance, because they would be unsaleable to the European public in advance of a vote for independence - they'd be difficult to sell afterwards, but marginally easier. You can already see the "not a ha'penny more" school of thought dominating within the EU. The whole thing would degenerate into an orgy of Britain-bashing (no doubt with its counterpart of Brexiteer grievance-mongering).
I agree. I've said so in thread headers as well.
Admittedly, it's hard to take an Olympian view when your negotiating partner is loudly abusing you, fantasising about your collapse and showing no realism in negotiations at all. But the EU should have tried.
The key pivot moment for the Scottish Play is the May election. Should parties openly pledged to independence win a majority then its politically impossible to deny a vote. Yes, as The Essicks Massiv keeps demanding, the PM could simply ignore the rebellious Scotch. Which by placing Scotland into unwilling colony status just cements even harder the movement towards their departure.
The whole point about democracy is the will of the people. In May we get to find out what that is...
That will not hold true if turnout is in the 45% - 55% range - well short of the almost 85% recorded in the 2014 Referendum.
Meh. People choosing not to vote are making a choice. "Do you wish Scotland to become an independent country" and "I object to the people who voted yes to break up my country against my will but I didnae vote" is an interesting approach that undoubtedly some will try and make.
The Zoe App dude saw no sign of a resurgence in autumn as it was happening.
Scientists get things wrong. The issue with the mantra "led by the science" is that scientists disagree and are sometimes mistaken.
It is not so much scientists get things wrong, but scientist are asked to do the impossible ...
In the absence of reliable data, scientists just cannot make a clear prediction from a model, other than with large uncertainties.
In March 2020. no-one could have predicted the course of the pandemic.
The countries that guessed right (NZ or Norway) did not use science to get what turned out to be the right answer. They had fearful, panicking leaders.
It turned out that panic was right.
The scientists were stupid. PB realised - despite being infested with obsessive incels - that COVID was *different*.
I stopped taking public transport in February 2020, though no scientist could yet “prove” it was dangerous.
Not quite. A Royal Commission would be a UK one dealing with the implications of E/W/NI independence from Scotland as much as the other way round. And it would not be dealing with the indefinite future but the actual severance.
As I said, I can see how the UK might set out its negotiating parameters via a Royal Commission. As this thread has shown, it is easy to see how that would be a great recruiting sergeant for the SNP. Nothing is more calculated to dissipate bonhomie and goodwill among Scots towards the union than telling them that if they leave, the UK will try to nail them to the floor.
The Tory party purpose of a RC would be to embarrass separatist opinion if possible. Obvs. Its national purpose would be to maximise the areas of agreement, including on big ticket questions so that the Scottish voters know what it is about beyond flag waving. Neither politics nor party politics can be removed from politics.
It is in rUK's interest, should Scotland decide to go independent, to have a good neighbour. That means trying to set up an amicable divorce settlement. rUK would do well to be open-handed in those circumstances.
But in practice, chippy English nationalism would win out in any attempt to set the terms in advance, to the great benefit of the SNP. Concessions could not be made in advance, because they would be unsaleable to the English nationalist public in advance of a vote for independence - they'd be difficult to sell afterwards, but marginally easier. You can already see the "not a ha'penny more" school of thought dominating on here. The whole thing would degenerate into an orgy of jock-bashing (no doubt with its counterpart of SNP grievance-mongering).
Not quite. A Royal Commission would be a UK one dealing with the implications of E/W/NI independence from Scotland as much as the other way round. And it would not be dealing with the indefinite future but the actual severance.
As I said, I can see how the UK might set out its negotiating parameters via a Royal Commission. As this thread has shown, it is easy to see how that would be a great recruiting sergeant for the SNP. Nothing is more calculated to dissipate bonhomie and goodwill among Scots towards the union than telling them that if they leave, the UK will try to nail them to the floor.
The Tory party purpose of a RC would be to embarrass separatist opinion if possible. Obvs. Its national purpose would be to maximise the areas of agreement, including on big ticket questions so that the Scottish voters know what it is about beyond flag waving. Neither politics nor party politics can be removed from politics.
It is in rUK's interest, should Scotland decide to go independent, to have a good neighbour. That means trying to set up an amicable divorce settlement. rUK would do well to be open-handed in those circumstances.
But in practice, chippy English nationalism would win out in any attempt to set the terms in advance, to the great benefit of the SNP. Concessions could not be made in advance, because they would be unsaleable to the English nationalist public in advance of a vote for independence - they'd be difficult to sell afterwards, but marginally easier. You can already see the "not a ha'penny more" school of thought dominating on here. The whole thing would degenerate into an orgy of jock-bashing (no doubt with its counterpart of SNP grievance-mongering).
"chippy English nationalism".....
Yawn.
What would the equivalent be for Scotland? What do they call chippies?
Anyone referring to deep fried mars bars is disqualified.
Not quite. A Royal Commission would be a UK one dealing with the implications of E/W/NI independence from Scotland as much as the other way round. And it would not be dealing with the indefinite future but the actual severance.
As I said, I can see how the UK might set out its negotiating parameters via a Royal Commission. As this thread has shown, it is easy to see how that would be a great recruiting sergeant for the SNP. Nothing is more calculated to dissipate bonhomie and goodwill among Scots towards the union than telling them that if they leave, the UK will try to nail them to the floor.
The Tory party purpose of a RC would be to embarrass separatist opinion if possible. Obvs. Its national purpose would be to maximise the areas of agreement, including on big ticket questions so that the Scottish voters know what it is about beyond flag waving. Neither politics nor party politics can be removed from politics.
It is in rUK's interest, should Scotland decide to go independent, to have a good neighbour. That means trying to set up an amicable divorce settlement. rUK would do well to be open-handed in those circumstances.
But in practice, chippy English nationalism would win out in any attempt to set the terms in advance, to the great benefit of the SNP. Concessions could not be made in advance, because they would be unsaleable to the English nationalist public in advance of a vote for independence - they'd be difficult to sell afterwards, but marginally easier. You can already see the "not a ha'penny more" school of thought dominating on here. The whole thing would degenerate into an orgy of jock-bashing (no doubt with its counterpart of SNP grievance-mongering).
"chippy English nationalism".....
Yawn.
Given you posted in great detail about the punishment beating you'd line up for the Scots if they had the temerity to think about independence, it's a term that applies well to you.
The key pivot moment for the Scottish Play is the May election. Should parties openly pledged to independence win a majority then its politically impossible to deny a vote. Yes, as The Essicks Massiv keeps demanding, the PM could simply ignore the rebellious Scotch. Which by placing Scotland into unwilling colony status just cements even harder the movement towards their departure.
The whole point about democracy is the will of the people. In May we get to find out what that is...
That will not hold true if turnout is in the 45% - 55% range - well short of the almost 85% recorded in the 2014 Referendum.
What was the turnout in the Holyrood election that was used as the basis for the original S30 request for indyref1, and why is that any different?
" it may well be much harder for the Conservatives to scare voters about the dangers of SNP influence at the next election than they presently seem to imagine." Because you think the average voter will work their way through the counterfactual process you've just set out, to realise that?
Welcome to political betting.
Occam's Razor applies here: the author started with the conclusion that he wants the Conservatives ejected from office at the next election, and worked backwards from there.
Well, I think it’s common ground among most of us (except Mysticrose) that if the Tories win the next election it will be by a very close shave.
If the past eleven years have taught us anything, it is that anything is possible. All the certainties I grew up with have disappeared.
Not quite. A Royal Commission would be a UK one dealing with the implications of E/W/NI independence from Scotland as much as the other way round. And it would not be dealing with the indefinite future but the actual severance.
As I said, I can see how the UK might set out its negotiating parameters via a Royal Commission. As this thread has shown, it is easy to see how that would be a great recruiting sergeant for the SNP. Nothing is more calculated to dissipate bonhomie and goodwill among Scots towards the union than telling them that if they leave, the UK will try to nail them to the floor.
Perhaps this is equally as true:
Nothing is more calculated to dissipate bonhomie and goodwill among Brits towards the EU than telling them that if they leave, the EU will try to nail them to the floor.
The Zoe App dude saw no sign of a resurgence in autumn as it was happening.
Scientists get things wrong. The issue with the mantra "led by the science" is that scientists disagree and are sometimes mistaken.
It is not so much scientists get things wrong, but scientist are asked to do the impossible ...
In the absence of reliable data, scientists just cannot make a clear prediction from a model, other than with large uncertainties.
In March 2020. no-one could have predicted the course of the pandemic.
The countries that guessed right (NZ or Norway) did not use science to get what turned out to be the right answer. They had fearful, panicking leaders.
It turned out that panic was right.
The scientists were stupid. PB realised - despite being infested with obsessive incels - that COVID was *different*.
I stopped taking public transport in February 2020, though no scientist could yet “prove” it was dangerous.
No, you guessed (perhaps influenced by one of panicking, hyper-ventilating incels infesting pb.com, like eadric).
It so happens you guessed right -- but there was no way to know it at the time, in the absence of any data on the actual characteristics of the virus.
Not quite. A Royal Commission would be a UK one dealing with the implications of E/W/NI independence from Scotland as much as the other way round. And it would not be dealing with the indefinite future but the actual severance.
As I said, I can see how the UK might set out its negotiating parameters via a Royal Commission. As this thread has shown, it is easy to see how that would be a great recruiting sergeant for the SNP. Nothing is more calculated to dissipate bonhomie and goodwill among Scots towards the union than telling them that if they leave, the UK will try to nail them to the floor.
The Tory party purpose of a RC would be to embarrass separatist opinion if possible. Obvs. Its national purpose would be to maximise the areas of agreement, including on big ticket questions so that the Scottish voters know what it is about beyond flag waving. Neither politics nor party politics can be removed from politics.
It is in rUK's interest, should Scotland decide to go independent, to have a good neighbour. That means trying to set up an amicable divorce settlement. rUK would do well to be open-handed in those circumstances.
But in practice, chippy English nationalism would win out in any attempt to set the terms in advance, to the great benefit of the SNP. Concessions could not be made in advance, because they would be unsaleable to the English nationalist public in advance of a vote for independence - they'd be difficult to sell afterwards, but marginally easier. You can already see the "not a ha'penny more" school of thought dominating on here. The whole thing would degenerate into an orgy of jock-bashing (no doubt with its counterpart of SNP grievance-mongering).
It is in EU's interest, should the UK to go independent, to have a good neighbour. That means trying to set up an amicable divorce settlement. The EU would do well to be open-handed in those circumstances.
But in practice, chippy EU bruised egos would win out in any attempt to set the terms in advance, to the great benefit of the UK Brexiteers. Concessions could not be made in advance, because they would be unsaleable to the European public in advance of a vote for independence - they'd be difficult to sell afterwards, but marginally easier. You can already see the "not a ha'penny more" school of thought dominating within the EU. The whole thing would degenerate into an orgy of Britain-bashing (no doubt with its counterpart of Brexiteer grievance-mongering).
What's worse for Alastair is that the rUK-Scotland negotiation is even more one sided. The UK was and is a very powerful nation in or out of the EU. It has natural allies in the world, a very strong diplomatic and intelligence network and a top tier economy both in absolute and relative terms. Scotland would be starting that process from scratch, it's not impossible but the nature of how it potentially leaves the UK will determine the near future for it and an England hating process of leaving will make things a lot harder. I don't see how it can be avoided, as you pointed out it couldn't be avoided with the UK leaving the EU.
The Labour right have no actual policy ideas at all do they?
Make Tory voters feel better whilst pissing off Labour voters is not really a policy idea.
I think the polls at the moment are about as useful as they would have been in about 1944 when they probably would have shown Churchill heading for a landslide.
My understanding was Churchill was rather unpopular during the war, lots of booing as he visited bombed cities “where’s those shelters you promised us”
In the two years leading up to the 1945 election, one poll had a Tory/Labour tie, one had a Labour lead of 6%, two had Labour leads of 8% and every single other poll (all six of them) had Labour leads in double digits. Moreover, several seats were lost in by-elections to Independent Socialist/Commonwealth party candidates ignoring the party truce.
The point was, a bit like with Corbyn 2017, not that the evidence of a Labour landslide wasn’t there but that people didn’t understand it. Even Attlee said to King George VI that he was surprised by the result.
Thank you for that.
My take is It’s tied in with the misconception on the home front we were up for it, stiff upper lip, digging for victory etc. Truth was the population were weary, tired of the war, weighed down by the horrors and death and endless day to day struggle.
As they say covid is telling on mental health, imagine your city and factory’s have just been blanket incendiary bombed, you don’t even know who is lost in the flames, and the sirens could go anytime.
Opinion polling in such situation is impossible. Yet only in hindsight is 1945 result a shock result, not at the time. Politicians on all sides knew which way the wind was blowing.
Remember Jonathon Ashworth, it’s carnage out there.
To be fair to Starmer that was from a report commissioned by the Corbyn leadership
You are always readable HY, but more importantly because you take your politics extremely seriously, are generally fair minded.
I might caveat that by excepting your planned military invasion of Scotland, occasionally spurious use of polling, and your cheerleading for Trafalgar. But other than that A*!
I dont understand New Zealand and Australias zero covid policy without vaccination.
It is madness.
Australia didn't invest well in vaccines, neither did NZ. They have programmes but they will be slow and late.
New Zealand’s first Covid-19 vaccines will arrive in the country ahead of schedule in a win for the government, which has been criticised for being too slow to procure them.
BUT....Vaccination of the wider population [will begin] in the second half of the year,” Ardern said, and was expected to take six months to a year. The vaccine would be free for all New Zealanders.
By the time they start properly, we will have done our population...by the time they finish round 1, we will have been over ours twice. Also, crucially, they aren't going to get started until after their winter.
25 people have died of Covid in New Zealand, a rate of 5 per million. Compared with 116,00 here, at a rate of 1,700 per million. You may not agree with their approach, but something's going right. I know where I'd feel safer, vaccine or not. And yes, I know the context is completely different. But given their death toll, NZ can afford to be a tad less urgent on vaccination.
The paradoxical thing is that TV replays have had the (in most peoples opinions positive) effect of stopping batsman playing with their pads when the ball is on the stumps. But this seemingly doesnt extend to using your pads when the ball is outside the off stump to any greater extent than was already the case before TV replays were introduced, since its still the onfield umpire making that decision as it was before — because it looks like the TV replay cant overturn the original decision on whether a shot was played or not.
A change in the law is required there Andy. The whole decision should be allocated to the off-field umpire.
The standard of the umpiring has been extremely good so far. Perversely, two of the three palpable errors in this match have been down to the third umpire - the stumping and the pad onto bat incident. Both may have been partly down to deficient technology.
Rohit definitely wasn't playing a shot but it's hard to judge in real time and different umpires have different ideas of what is constitutes a shot and what is just play acting. You would be more likely to get a consistent standard if the assessment were handed over the off-field man.
The Zoe App dude saw no sign of a resurgence in autumn as it was happening.
Scientists get things wrong. The issue with the mantra "led by the science" is that scientists disagree and are sometimes mistaken.
It is not so much scientists get things wrong, but scientist are asked to do the impossible ...
In the absence of reliable data, scientists just cannot make a clear prediction from a model, other than with large uncertainties.
In March 2020. no-one could have predicted the course of the pandemic.
The countries that guessed right (NZ or Norway) did not use science to get what turned out to be the right answer. They had fearful, panicking leaders.
It turned out that panic was right.
The scientists were stupid. PB realised - despite being infested with obsessive incels - that COVID was *different*.
I stopped taking public transport in February 2020, though no scientist could yet “prove” it was dangerous.
No, you guessed (perhaps influenced by one of panicking, hyper-ventilating incels infesting pb.com, like eadric).
It so happens you guessed right -- but there was no way to know it at the time, in the absence of any data on the actual characteristics of the virus.
Real Covid-soothsayers chose the safety of Drakeford's Penarth to ride out the first Coronavirus storm.
The Labour right have no actual policy ideas at all do they?
Make Tory voters feel better whilst pissing off Labour voters is not really a policy idea.
I think the polls at the moment are about as useful as they would have been in about 1944 when they probably would have shown Churchill heading for a landslide.
My understanding was Churchill was rather unpopular during the war, lots of booing as he visited bombed cities “where’s those shelters you promised us”
In the two years leading up to the 1945 election, one poll had a Tory/Labour tie, one had a Labour lead of 6%, two had Labour leads of 8% and every single other poll (all six of them) had Labour leads in double digits. Moreover, several seats were lost in by-elections to Independent Socialist/Commonwealth party candidates ignoring the party truce.
The point was, a bit like with Corbyn 2017, not that the evidence of a Labour landslide wasn’t there but that people didn’t understand it. Even Attlee said to King George VI that he was surprised by the result.
I was listening to a podcast a while ago which featured a wonderfully lugubrious far-left activist who'd been involved in every cause on that side under the sun for decades, and although his ideals hadn't changed, he was absolutely convinced that the radical project - to the dismay of the researchers who interviewed him - had no chance of success in the UK. When Attlee was raised as a model for the left seizing power from the outside, he wearily pointed out that Attlee hadn't been on the outside at all - he and Labour had been an intrinsic part of the governing coalition for 5 years, with Attlee himself overseeing the domestic arena as well as becoming Deputy Prime Minister. So you had a 'coalition effect' in 1945 that was the reverse of what happened in 2015: instead of the minor party being discredited and having its seats cannibalized by the major partner, it became normalized, had its competence tried and tested, and then devoured its host.
Not quite. A Royal Commission would be a UK one dealing with the implications of E/W/NI independence from Scotland as much as the other way round. And it would not be dealing with the indefinite future but the actual severance.
As I said, I can see how the UK might set out its negotiating parameters via a Royal Commission. As this thread has shown, it is easy to see how that would be a great recruiting sergeant for the SNP. Nothing is more calculated to dissipate bonhomie and goodwill among Scots towards the union than telling them that if they leave, the UK will try to nail them to the floor.
The Tory party purpose of a RC would be to embarrass separatist opinion if possible. Obvs. Its national purpose would be to maximise the areas of agreement, including on big ticket questions so that the Scottish voters know what it is about beyond flag waving. Neither politics nor party politics can be removed from politics.
It is in rUK's interest, should Scotland decide to go independent, to have a good neighbour. That means trying to set up an amicable divorce settlement. rUK would do well to be open-handed in those circumstances.
But in practice, chippy English nationalism would win out in any attempt to set the terms in advance, to the great benefit of the SNP. Concessions could not be made in advance, because they would be unsaleable to the English nationalist public in advance of a vote for independence - they'd be difficult to sell afterwards, but marginally easier. You can already see the "not a ha'penny more" school of thought dominating on here. The whole thing would degenerate into an orgy of jock-bashing (no doubt with its counterpart of SNP grievance-mongering).
"chippy English nationalism".....
Yawn.
Given you posted in great detail about the punishment beating you'd line up for the Scots if they had the temerity to think about independence, it's a term that applies well to you.
"punishment beating" lol. I had the temerity to post that what you said was clearly bollocks. God forbid...
You really haven't thought through your tosh, have you? Well, I hope that's it...the alternative doesn't bear thinking about.
Not quite. A Royal Commission would be a UK one dealing with the implications of E/W/NI independence from Scotland as much as the other way round. And it would not be dealing with the indefinite future but the actual severance.
As I said, I can see how the UK might set out its negotiating parameters via a Royal Commission. As this thread has shown, it is easy to see how that would be a great recruiting sergeant for the SNP. Nothing is more calculated to dissipate bonhomie and goodwill among Scots towards the union than telling them that if they leave, the UK will try to nail them to the floor.
The Tory party purpose of a RC would be to embarrass separatist opinion if possible. Obvs. Its national purpose would be to maximise the areas of agreement, including on big ticket questions so that the Scottish voters know what it is about beyond flag waving. Neither politics nor party politics can be removed from politics.
It is in rUK's interest, should Scotland decide to go independent, to have a good neighbour. That means trying to set up an amicable divorce settlement. rUK would do well to be open-handed in those circumstances.
But in practice, chippy English nationalism would win out in any attempt to set the terms in advance, to the great benefit of the SNP. Concessions could not be made in advance, because they would be unsaleable to the English nationalist public in advance of a vote for independence - they'd be difficult to sell afterwards, but marginally easier. You can already see the "not a ha'penny more" school of thought dominating on here. The whole thing would degenerate into an orgy of jock-bashing (no doubt with its counterpart of SNP grievance-mongering).
It is in EU's interest, should the UK to go independent, to have a good neighbour. That means trying to set up an amicable divorce settlement. The EU would do well to be open-handed in those circumstances.
But in practice, chippy EU bruised egos would win out in any attempt to set the terms in advance, to the great benefit of the UK Brexiteers. Concessions could not be made in advance, because they would be unsaleable to the European public in advance of a vote for independence - they'd be difficult to sell afterwards, but marginally easier. You can already see the "not a ha'penny more" school of thought dominating within the EU. The whole thing would degenerate into an orgy of Britain-bashing (no doubt with its counterpart of Brexiteer grievance-mongering).
What's worse for Alastair is that the rUK-Scotland negotiation is even more one sided. The UK was and is a very powerful nation in or out of the EU. It has natural allies in the world, a very strong diplomatic and intelligence network and a top tier economy both in absolute and relative terms. Scotland would be starting that process from scratch, it's not impossible but the nature of how it potentially leaves the UK will determine the near future for it and an England hating process of leaving will make things a lot harder. I don't see how it can be avoided, as you pointed out it couldn't be avoided with the UK leaving the EU.
Scotland has one tremendous advantage over the UK: they won't be led by May and Hammond.
The worst elements of the UK/EU negotiations were a result of the 2017 elections leading to the paralysis of the 2017/19 Parliament. The UK had just about the worst possible Prime Minister and worst possible Chancellor for the negotiations as neither of them actually believed in what was being done.
Scottish independence won't be tackled from a "let's get this bloody stupid thing done, how can we minimise it's damage" perspective that May and especially Hammond and the 2017-19 Parliament had.
Scottish independence negotiations would be the pinnacle of the life's work for the SNP politicians who would be masters of all they survey politically.
The Zoe App dude saw no sign of a resurgence in autumn as it was happening.
Scientists get things wrong. The issue with the mantra "led by the science" is that scientists disagree and are sometimes mistaken.
It is not so much scientists get things wrong, but scientist are asked to do the impossible ...
In the absence of reliable data, scientists just cannot make a clear prediction from a model, other than with large uncertainties.
In March 2020. no-one could have predicted the course of the pandemic.
The countries that guessed right (NZ or Norway) did not use science to get what turned out to be the right answer. They had fearful, panicking leaders.
It turned out that panic was right.
The scientists were stupid. PB realised - despite being infested with obsessive incels - that COVID was *different*.
I stopped taking public transport in February 2020, though no scientist could yet “prove” it was dangerous.
No, you guessed (perhaps influenced by one of panicking, hyper-ventilating incels infesting pb.com, like eadric).
It so happens you guessed right -- but there was no way to know it at the time, in the absence of any data on the actual characteristics of the virus.
There was data.
There were already reports of China welding people into their apartments.
Scientists failed to apply common sense risk mitigation because the risk was right in front of their nose as opposed to at the end of a microscope.
Instead of running at the first swell of the tidal wave, they advised waiting until they could personally assess that the tidal wave was wet.
Much fun is had in likening Brexit to Sindy but I find the comparison false and facile. There are 2 similarities. The appeal is heart over head. About something other than pounds and pence. With a long and messy process to implement. Other than this, completely different things. Brexit was a sovereign nation choosing to depart a supranational club in which it had pooled its sovereignty in certain areas in exchange for economic benefit and international clout. Sindy is - would be - the break up of a sovereign nation into two new sovereign nations, one of which used to be a sovereign nation and would become so again.
The Labour right have no actual policy ideas at all do they?
Make Tory voters feel better whilst pissing off Labour voters is not really a policy idea.
I think the polls at the moment are about as useful as they would have been in about 1944 when they probably would have shown Churchill heading for a landslide.
My understanding was Churchill was rather unpopular during the war, lots of booing as he visited bombed cities “where’s those shelters you promised us”
In the two years leading up to the 1945 election, one poll had a Tory/Labour tie, one had a Labour lead of 6%, two had Labour leads of 8% and every single other poll (all six of them) had Labour leads in double digits. Moreover, several seats were lost in by-elections to Independent Socialist/Commonwealth party candidates ignoring the party truce.
The point was, a bit like with Corbyn 2017, not that the evidence of a Labour landslide wasn’t there but that people didn’t understand it. Even Attlee said to King George VI that he was surprised by the result.
Thank you for that.
My take is It’s tied in with the misconception on the home front we were up for it, stiff upper lip, digging for victory etc. Truth was the population were weary, tired of the war, weighed down by the horrors and death and endless day to day struggle.
As they say covid is telling on mental health, imagine your city and factory’s have just been blanket incendiary bombed, you don’t even know who is lost in the flames, and the sirens could go anytime.
Opinion polling in such situation is impossible. Yet only in hindsight is 1945 result a shock result, not at the time. Politicians on all sides knew which way the wind was blowing.
Remember Jonathon Ashworth, it’s carnage out there.
Hmmm...it’s worth pointing out the Home Front was dominated by Labour politicians, Attlee as Lord President, Morrison as Home Secretary, Bevin as Minister of Labour, Dalton at the Board of Trade.
More likely they simply hadn’t forgiven the Tories for Appeasement and Unemployment before the war, which left Britain less well prepared than it should have been for a war that increasingly, thanks largely to Churchill’s own rhetoric, came to be seen as inevitable.
Not quite. A Royal Commission would be a UK one dealing with the implications of E/W/NI independence from Scotland as much as the other way round. And it would not be dealing with the indefinite future but the actual severance.
As I said, I can see how the UK might set out its negotiating parameters via a Royal Commission. As this thread has shown, it is easy to see how that would be a great recruiting sergeant for the SNP. Nothing is more calculated to dissipate bonhomie and goodwill among Scots towards the union than telling them that if they leave, the UK will try to nail them to the floor.
The Tory party purpose of a RC would be to embarrass separatist opinion if possible. Obvs. Its national purpose would be to maximise the areas of agreement, including on big ticket questions so that the Scottish voters know what it is about beyond flag waving. Neither politics nor party politics can be removed from politics.
It is in rUK's interest, should Scotland decide to go independent, to have a good neighbour. That means trying to set up an amicable divorce settlement. rUK would do well to be open-handed in those circumstances.
But in practice, chippy English nationalism would win out in any attempt to set the terms in advance, to the great benefit of the SNP. Concessions could not be made in advance, because they would be unsaleable to the English nationalist public in advance of a vote for independence - they'd be difficult to sell afterwards, but marginally easier. You can already see the "not a ha'penny more" school of thought dominating on here. The whole thing would degenerate into an orgy of jock-bashing (no doubt with its counterpart of SNP grievance-mongering).
It is in EU's interest, should the UK to go independent, to have a good neighbour. That means trying to set up an amicable divorce settlement. The EU would do well to be open-handed in those circumstances.
But in practice, chippy EU bruised egos would win out in any attempt to set the terms in advance, to the great benefit of the UK Brexiteers. Concessions could not be made in advance, because they would be unsaleable to the European public in advance of a vote for independence - they'd be difficult to sell afterwards, but marginally easier. You can already see the "not a ha'penny more" school of thought dominating within the EU. The whole thing would degenerate into an orgy of Britain-bashing (no doubt with its counterpart of Brexiteer grievance-mongering).
You are both right which is why separatism of all flavours is largely a project for haters and wreckers.
I know. We both have a point.
It's why the absolutist brickbat throwing from both sides - as if there was only one unanswerable version of the truth - is so pointless.
There's so much of this virus that has nuanced elements.
On the one hand, seasonality of SARS-CoV-2 seems pretty limited at best, with the outbreaks north and south of the equator and during spring, summer, autumn, and winter being largely based on mobility data (official and de facto restrictions/lockdowns) rather than the season - but on the other hand, one would expect some benefit to weather that encourages people being outside and/or with windows open. It could be wishful thinking, of course, but I'd be a bit surprised if there was none.
Even if it's not very visible when R0 is high, we would expect the benefits to be considerably stronger when vaccines push transmission down such that the R without restrictions would be a lot lower.
On the cross-reactive coronaviruses - after some excitement in autumn when activity was seen (albeit the scientists involved strongly warned that inhibition of transmission and effective boosts to herd immunity were so unlikely as to be implausible), further study has shown no real discernable benefit. T-cells get a bit excited, but then don't actually do anything useful - they have low avidity for the virus (there's some weak evidence that it can make things worse - almost as if they assume they've recognised it, decided it's not a big deal, and buggered off again). Still, it would just have been a bonus if it had come off, and now we have something (vaccines) that DOES give real immunity.
Herd immunity-wise - they've found that antibody levels decline slower than expected, which is good for avoidance of re-infection or even transmission of the virus by the infected-and-recovered; bad for assumptions of higher levels of infection-and-recovery.
But while the levels of herd immunity will be lower than we'd have hoped from infection, restrictions act to multiply the effect of whatever herd immunity there is. If there's 25% immunity, that means R is pushed down to three quarters of what it would be without it. So restrictions that would otherwise push R down to 1.2 (September growth levels) would actually put it down to 0.9 (comfortably declining). I wouldn't be surprised if this was what had made the difference with controlling the B.1.1.7 variant (about four-thirds more infections, coupled with about 25% immunity leads to a wash - restrictions that would have controlled the original variant can now control the new one)
I don't think Scottish representation during withdrawal negotiations would be much of a practical problem. The UK kept MEPs throughout Brexit negotiations.
I do think parties led by Starmer, Davey and Sturgeon would manage a hung Parliament better than the last hung Parliament.
What practical powers did MEPs have during Brexit negotiations? My understanding was all they could do was approve or reject the final trading agreement, negotiated by the council with that self important twat Juncker shoving his oar in repeatedly on behalf of the Commission.
This obviously would be much less power than Scottish MPs would have. After all, Parliament can remove a Prime Minister at any moment it chooses.
But if there’s more to it than that, feel free to enlighten me.
A Lab/SNP coalition during the negotiation phase would be a proper constitutional crisis. We could have SNP ministers ‘negotiating’ on the UK side.
A good UK government will have learned from the EU, and have a two-stage process - with debt, currency and border the only three subjects for discussion in the first phase.
Such a coalition is not a runner. Confidence & Supply as provided by the DUP post 2017 election - or by the Liberals during the Lib-Lab pact of 1977 - 78 - is much more likely.
A minority Labour government conducting negotiations would create mayhem in politics south of the border. There has to be a majority government or cross-party commission. I also think that the pressure for a GE following a referendum Yes vote would be enormous. If LP tried to ride that out they would be signing their death warrant.
Not quite. A Royal Commission would be a UK one dealing with the implications of E/W/NI independence from Scotland as much as the other way round. And it would not be dealing with the indefinite future but the actual severance.
As I said, I can see how the UK might set out its negotiating parameters via a Royal Commission. As this thread has shown, it is easy to see how that would be a great recruiting sergeant for the SNP. Nothing is more calculated to dissipate bonhomie and goodwill among Scots towards the union than telling them that if they leave, the UK will try to nail them to the floor.
The Tory party purpose of a RC would be to embarrass separatist opinion if possible. Obvs. Its national purpose would be to maximise the areas of agreement, including on big ticket questions so that the Scottish voters know what it is about beyond flag waving. Neither politics nor party politics can be removed from politics.
It is in rUK's interest, should Scotland decide to go independent, to have a good neighbour. That means trying to set up an amicable divorce settlement. rUK would do well to be open-handed in those circumstances.
But in practice, chippy English nationalism would win out in any attempt to set the terms in advance, to the great benefit of the SNP. Concessions could not be made in advance, because they would be unsaleable to the English nationalist public in advance of a vote for independence - they'd be difficult to sell afterwards, but marginally easier. You can already see the "not a ha'penny more" school of thought dominating on here. The whole thing would degenerate into an orgy of jock-bashing (no doubt with its counterpart of SNP grievance-mongering).
It is in EU's interest, should the UK to go independent, to have a good neighbour. That means trying to set up an amicable divorce settlement. The EU would do well to be open-handed in those circumstances.
But in practice, chippy EU bruised egos would win out in any attempt to set the terms in advance, to the great benefit of the UK Brexiteers. Concessions could not be made in advance, because they would be unsaleable to the European public in advance of a vote for independence - they'd be difficult to sell afterwards, but marginally easier. You can already see the "not a ha'penny more" school of thought dominating within the EU. The whole thing would degenerate into an orgy of Britain-bashing (no doubt with its counterpart of Brexiteer grievance-mongering).
I agree. I've said so in thread headers as well.
Admittedly, it's hard to take an Olympian view when your negotiating partner is loudly abusing you, fantasising about your collapse and showing no realism in negotiations at all. But the EU should have tried.
Ok, that's fair enough. My objection is simply due to a universal caricature of all of those who voted Leave ( and I don't share that "collapse" view) and I'd be grateful for a little more nuance to reflect that in future.
The Labour right have no actual policy ideas at all do they?
Make Tory voters feel better whilst pissing off Labour voters is not really a policy idea.
I think the polls at the moment are about as useful as they would have been in about 1944 when they probably would have shown Churchill heading for a landslide.
My understanding was Churchill was rather unpopular during the war, lots of booing as he visited bombed cities “where’s those shelters you promised us”
In the two years leading up to the 1945 election, one poll had a Tory/Labour tie, one had a Labour lead of 6%, two had Labour leads of 8% and every single other poll (all six of them) had Labour leads in double digits. Moreover, several seats were lost in by-elections to Independent Socialist/Commonwealth party candidates ignoring the party truce.
The point was, a bit like with Corbyn 2017, not that the evidence of a Labour landslide wasn’t there but that people didn’t understand it. Even Attlee said to King George VI that he was surprised by the result.
Thank you for that.
My take is It’s tied in with the misconception on the home front we were up for it, stiff upper lip, digging for victory etc. Truth was the population were weary, tired of the war, weighed down by the horrors and death and endless day to day struggle.
As they say covid is telling on mental health, imagine your city and factory’s have just been blanket incendiary bombed, you don’t even know who is lost in the flames, and the sirens could go anytime.
Opinion polling in such situation is impossible. Yet only in hindsight is 1945 result a shock result, not at the time. Politicians on all sides knew which way the wind was blowing.
Remember Jonathon Ashworth, it’s carnage out there.
Hmmm...it’s worth pointing out the Home Front was dominated by Labour politicians, Attlee as Lord President, Morrison as Home Secretary, Bevin as Minister of Labour, Dalton at the Board of Trade.
More likely they simply hadn’t forgiven the Tories for Appeasement and Unemployment before the war, which left Britain less well prepared than it should have been for a war that increasingly, thanks largely to Churchill’s own rhetoric, came to be seen as inevitable.
Plus the collectivist mentality created by the war and don't forget the education programmes in the armed forces. Memories of the failure to deliver "homes fit for heroes" after WW1.
I don't know if it's just me, or we've gone incredibly quickly from Labour doing well to Starmer must go in what seems like a week. Perhaps this is the nature of the political discourse these days - but fundamentally nothing has really changed for him in that time, has it?
I've remarked already that Dodds must go and be replaced with somebody like Reeves but that's not an issue that has come up - and likely doesn't come up anyway (Dodds is invisible).
As for the matter of Scottish Independence, Labour must oppose it at every turn and instead offer Devo Max as an alternative. If they are to Govern they must shoot down any idea the SNP would ever be in Government with them. In reality they will dare the SNP to vote them down, I suspect.
I am of the view that 2024 might result in a smaller Tory majority or a Hung Parliament.
Yes, it's odd. Just one bad poll as far as I can tell. Me, I'm where I was. Worried that Starmer is a bit broadsheet for a tabloid age, not at all keen on flaggery, but nowhere near losing faith in his leadership or writing off GE24 as unwinnable.
Not quite. A Royal Commission would be a UK one dealing with the implications of E/W/NI independence from Scotland as much as the other way round. And it would not be dealing with the indefinite future but the actual severance.
As I said, I can see how the UK might set out its negotiating parameters via a Royal Commission. As this thread has shown, it is easy to see how that would be a great recruiting sergeant for the SNP. Nothing is more calculated to dissipate bonhomie and goodwill among Scots towards the union than telling them that if they leave, the UK will try to nail them to the floor.
The Tory party purpose of a RC would be to embarrass separatist opinion if possible. Obvs. Its national purpose would be to maximise the areas of agreement, including on big ticket questions so that the Scottish voters know what it is about beyond flag waving. Neither politics nor party politics can be removed from politics.
It is in rUK's interest, should Scotland decide to go independent, to have a good neighbour. That means trying to set up an amicable divorce settlement. rUK would do well to be open-handed in those circumstances.
But in practice, chippy English nationalism would win out in any attempt to set the terms in advance, to the great benefit of the SNP. Concessions could not be made in advance, because they would be unsaleable to the English nationalist public in advance of a vote for independence - they'd be difficult to sell afterwards, but marginally easier. You can already see the "not a ha'penny more" school of thought dominating on here. The whole thing would degenerate into an orgy of jock-bashing (no doubt with its counterpart of SNP grievance-mongering).
It is in EU's interest, should the UK to go independent, to have a good neighbour. That means trying to set up an amicable divorce settlement. The EU would do well to be open-handed in those circumstances.
But in practice, chippy EU bruised egos would win out in any attempt to set the terms in advance, to the great benefit of the UK Brexiteers. Concessions could not be made in advance, because they would be unsaleable to the European public in advance of a vote for independence - they'd be difficult to sell afterwards, but marginally easier. You can already see the "not a ha'penny more" school of thought dominating within the EU. The whole thing would degenerate into an orgy of Britain-bashing (no doubt with its counterpart of Brexiteer grievance-mongering).
What's worse for Alastair is that the rUK-Scotland negotiation is even more one sided. The UK was and is a very powerful nation in or out of the EU. It has natural allies in the world, a very strong diplomatic and intelligence network and a top tier economy both in absolute and relative terms. Scotland would be starting that process from scratch, it's not impossible but the nature of how it potentially leaves the UK will determine the near future for it and an England hating process of leaving will make things a lot harder. I don't see how it can be avoided, as you pointed out it couldn't be avoided with the UK leaving the EU.
Scotland has one tremendous advantage over the UK: they won't be led by May and Hammond.
The worst elements of the UK/EU negotiations were a result of the 2017 elections leading to the paralysis of the 2017/19 Parliament. The UK had just about the worst possible Prime Minister and worst possible Chancellor for the negotiations as neither of them actually believed in what was being done.
Scottish independence won't be tackled from a "let's get this bloody stupid thing done, how can we minimise it's damage" perspective that May and especially Hammond and the 2017-19 Parliament had.
Scottish independence negotiations would be the pinnacle of the life's work for the SNP politicians who would be masters of all they survey politically.
Unless they have some secret plan, then they are either delusional about the future choices Scotland will have to make or they are just massive liars. As people keep saying, if you think the Brexit process was a long drawn pain, that was only a trading agreement. This is a 300 year old political union! I know the only plan they have is to get the vote won and whatever lie or promise that has to be made to do it is fair game. Once won no one can go back. I suppose the plan is to blame the English for anything that goes wrong afterwards.
One thing that appears to be lost on most “unionists”: the Union was intended to be a partnership between two sovereign equals in a joint endeavour.
Scotland cannot - or should not - be considered a kind of sub-national entity (“colony”) to be further devolved to.
Indeed, further devolution has its own challenges (true devomax would savagely decrease available spending in Scotland), and the asymmetrical devolution we have already clearly drives a rift between England and Scotland.
We should rather look at our truly national entities: the Bank of England, the BBC, the Supreme Court, the House of Lords, the NHS, maybe even our seat on the UNSC - and ask ourselves - what would they look like if they truly reflected a collaboration between sovereign equals?
Unfortunately, there is no-one able to speak for Scotland who wants to make it work.
I don't know if it's just me, or we've gone incredibly quickly from Labour doing well to Starmer must go in what seems like a week. Perhaps this is the nature of the political discourse these days - but fundamentally nothing has really changed for him in that time, has it?
I've remarked already that Dodds must go and be replaced with somebody like Reeves but that's not an issue that has come up - and likely doesn't come up anyway (Dodds is invisible).
As for the matter of Scottish Independence, Labour must oppose it at every turn and instead offer Devo Max as an alternative. If they are to Govern they must shoot down any idea the SNP would ever be in Government with them. In reality they will dare the SNP to vote them down, I suspect.
I am of the view that 2024 might result in a smaller Tory majority or a Hung Parliament.
Off Topic
A couple of ideas to ease your concern Horse. Pre-1997 Blair was seen by many as "an inexperienced, lightweight Bambi". Unlike many people on here, I can't see past a good few years of bad (very, very bad) economic news. If it is as dire as I anticipate, the Conservatives will struggle.
Starmer does however need to exercise some enthusiasm and forward planning. Being the "quiet man" got IDS nowhere. Starmer's honeymoon is over.
I dont understand New Zealand and Australias zero covid policy without vaccination.
It is madness.
It’s hardly a conscious choice to have to wait a few months for vaccines. They’ll be out there as quickly as they can be manufactured.
It is a conscious choice to be absolutely slow AF ordering and procuring the vaccines. Neither nation has vaccinated a single individual AFAIK. It’s absolutely pathetic.
Approval as well, both regulators are engaged in the idiotic "my rules are safer than yours" dick waving contest. Aiui neither county has approved any of the current vaccines and are asking for "more data" on safety and other such delaying tactics. Despite the fact that the Pfizer vaccine has been given to 30m+ people globally, AZ to 10m+ globally and Moderna to 10m+ as well without any major incidents.
Truly ridiculous. Jacinda’s Island Prison policy was looking pretty clever ... until they had another outbreak. Now panic and no other road than lockdown.
She's grovelling to China at the moment for vaccines and investment. I wouldn't be surprised if the NZ stance on delaying western vaccines is related to this.
It's the danger of getting high on your own supply.
A lot of the spin about Saint Jacinda is preposterous nonsense but they believe it and it's led to them viewing vaccines as no big deal.
Pure idiocy. The vaccines are the endgame of this, quarantines, lockdowns etc are stalling mechanisms to get us through to the vaccine. No more than that.
They’ve ordered $1bn of vaccines for a population of 5 million, which is hardly viewing them as ‘no big deal’. In consequence, they’ll be four months or so behind us in vaccinating their population. In context, it would be more accurate (though still wrong) to view that as no bid deal.
I'd love to see some polling on when the public expects: 1. The UK to have finished vaccination 2. When country X will have finished vaccination. (Where X = Germany, Ireland, Japan, New Zealand, Brazil, China say.)
My guess is that 1. will be a bit earlier than reality, but 2. will be much later.
Of course - and much will depend on how quickly supplies are manufactured and shipped. But it’s a little odd to argue that a country, which has ordered enough vaccine to vaccinate its population twice over, isn’t taking it at all seriously. NZ have certainly been slower off the mark that Australia, but I suspect that has something to with domestic life sciences capacity.
If you want vaccines swiftly, especially in time for your winter, the it's not enough to just order the vaccines. That's what the Europeans and Canadians have done too and they're struggling too.
If you want it done swiftly then you need to do more than just order the vaccines, especially more than ordering them late. You need to invest in manufacturing, procurement, development, distribution etc. That's what the UK, USA and India and more have done.
That was my point - NZ did not have that capacity.
The Labour right have no actual policy ideas at all do they?
Make Tory voters feel better whilst pissing off Labour voters is not really a policy idea.
I think the polls at the moment are about as useful as they would have been in about 1944 when they probably would have shown Churchill heading for a landslide.
Polling was in its infancy, but such polls as there were certainly didn’t suggest that.
Indeed so. Polls carried out in 1943 were actually suggesting a bigger landslide for Labour and other Left wing parties - such as Common Wealth - than actually occured in 1945.
The Labour right have no actual policy ideas at all do they?
Make Tory voters feel better whilst pissing off Labour voters is not really a policy idea.
I think the polls at the moment are about as useful as they would have been in about 1944 when they probably would have shown Churchill heading for a landslide.
My understanding was Churchill was rather unpopular during the war, lots of booing as he visited bombed cities “where’s those shelters you promised us”
In the two years leading up to the 1945 election, one poll had a Tory/Labour tie, one had a Labour lead of 6%, two had Labour leads of 8% and every single other poll (all six of them) had Labour leads in double digits. Moreover, several seats were lost in by-elections to Independent Socialist/Commonwealth party candidates ignoring the party truce.
The point was, a bit like with Corbyn 2017, not that the evidence of a Labour landslide wasn’t there but that people didn’t understand it. Even Attlee said to King George VI that he was surprised by the result.
Thank you for that.
My take is It’s tied in with the misconception on the home front we were up for it, stiff upper lip, digging for victory etc. Truth was the population were weary, tired of the war, weighed down by the horrors and death and endless day to day struggle.
As they say covid is telling on mental health, imagine your city and factory’s have just been blanket incendiary bombed, you don’t even know who is lost in the flames, and the sirens could go anytime.
Opinion polling in such situation is impossible. Yet only in hindsight is 1945 result a shock result, not at the time. Politicians on all sides knew which way the wind was blowing.
Remember Jonathon Ashworth, it’s carnage out there.
Hmmm...it’s worth pointing out the Home Front was dominated by Labour politicians, Attlee as Lord President, Morrison as Home Secretary, Bevin as Minister of Labour, Dalton at the Board of Trade.
More likely they simply hadn’t forgiven the Tories for Appeasement and Unemployment before the war, which left Britain less well prepared than it should have been for a war that increasingly, thanks largely to Churchill’s own rhetoric, came to be seen as inevitable.
I'd stake my reputation (aka three rags, and a pre-owned cigar) that you're wrong on this. Rather I think it was just seeking a change. The sunny uplands.
Boris has to be very careful that the electorate don't align him with these years and want to put it all (and him) behind them.
The key pivot moment for the Scottish Play is the May election. Should parties openly pledged to independence win a majority then its politically impossible to deny a vote. Yes, as The Essicks Massiv keeps demanding, the PM could simply ignore the rebellious Scotch. Which by placing Scotland into unwilling colony status just cements even harder the movement towards their departure.
The whole point about democracy is the will of the people. In May we get to find out what that is...
That will not hold true if turnout is in the 45% - 55% range - well short of the almost 85% recorded in the 2014 Referendum.
Meh. People choosing not to vote are making a choice. "Do you wish Scotland to become an independent country" and "I object to the people who voted yes to break up my country against my will but I didnae vote" is an interesting approach that undoubtedly some will try and make.
Many will take the view that Holyrood as an institution is not sufficiently important to justify bothering to vote at all. Most voters choose to stay at home for Local Elections - and Holyrood turnout has always fallen well short of turnout fir Westminster.
Not quite. A Royal Commission would be a UK one dealing with the implications of E/W/NI independence from Scotland as much as the other way round. And it would not be dealing with the indefinite future but the actual severance.
As I said, I can see how the UK might set out its negotiating parameters via a Royal Commission. As this thread has shown, it is easy to see how that would be a great recruiting sergeant for the SNP. Nothing is more calculated to dissipate bonhomie and goodwill among Scots towards the union than telling them that if they leave, the UK will try to nail them to the floor.
The Tory party purpose of a RC would be to embarrass separatist opinion if possible. Obvs. Its national purpose would be to maximise the areas of agreement, including on big ticket questions so that the Scottish voters know what it is about beyond flag waving. Neither politics nor party politics can be removed from politics.
It is in rUK's interest, should Scotland decide to go independent, to have a good neighbour. That means trying to set up an amicable divorce settlement. rUK would do well to be open-handed in those circumstances.
But in practice, chippy English nationalism would win out in any attempt to set the terms in advance, to the great benefit of the SNP. Concessions could not be made in advance, because they would be unsaleable to the English nationalist public in advance of a vote for independence - they'd be difficult to sell afterwards, but marginally easier. You can already see the "not a ha'penny more" school of thought dominating on here. The whole thing would degenerate into an orgy of jock-bashing (no doubt with its counterpart of SNP grievance-mongering).
Agree about good neighbours. The controlling concept of both Brexit and Scexit should be that prosperous neighbours make good customers.
I suppose what is most needed in deciding the Scexit question is realism about what is necessarily involved, so that there is a genuine debate within Scotland itself about pros and cons. There are genuine issues about borders, trade, currency, defence, debt, deficit, banking all of which cut both ways but can't just be relegated to afterwards.
BTW whatever chippy English nationalism is it seems in a much less advanced state that the Scottish variety. Not joining in, I live in England near the border where I can see Scottish hills from nearby, have family living on the border itself and family living and working in Scotland as well as England. Round here the issues of the Gretna to Berwick borders are live issues. also worth noting that every border constituency, on both sides, returns a Tory MP.
The Brian Rose campaign is now is great trouble I see. Having self-funded himself into a second-favourite position it now seems that he was just throwing money away. This isn't a good look for a future mayor.
What a clown!
Mind you I'm happy that he gifted me a few hundred pounds.
Comments
Scotland cannot - or should not - be considered a kind of sub-national entity (“colony”) to be further devolved to.
Indeed, further devolution has its own challenges (true devomax would savagely decrease available spending in Scotland), and the asymmetrical devolution we have already clearly drives a rift between England and Scotland.
We should rather look at our truly national entities: the Bank of England, the BBC, the Supreme Court, the House of Lords, the NHS, maybe even our seat on the UNSC - and ask ourselves - what would they look like if they truly reflected a collaboration between sovereign equals?
Might need to be careful not to make it too overtly nationalistic given likely inflationary pressures. ‘One English pound is worth a hundred Scots’ would be embarrassing and much chanted at them at the rugby.
Right now, I think they'd shrink to a majority of 10-20. The next 3 years will be crucial - and fascinating, of course.
That's why we're all really here; we're politics geeks who can't shake the bug.
I've remarked already that Dodds must go and be replaced with somebody like Reeves but that's not an issue that has come up - and likely doesn't come up anyway (Dodds is invisible).
As for the matter of Scottish Independence, Labour must oppose it at every turn and instead offer Devo Max as an alternative. If they are to Govern they must shoot down any idea the SNP would ever be in Government with them. In reality they will dare the SNP to vote them down, I suspect.
I am of the view that 2024 might result in a smaller Tory majority or a Hung Parliament.
Anyway, Stuart, you must be feeling pretty terrific having discovered that per my definitive Tory Model you are not one.
NZ have certainly been slower off the mark that Australia, but I suspect that has something to with domestic life sciences capacity.
If you want to see how ‘equal’ Scotland wasin the new British Parliament, remember its 45 members were only one more than the number returned by Cornwall (which was admittedly a strange case) and less than double that of Wales.
The prevalence is being slashed at the minute dramatically. It's already down to October levels with another 4 weeks to go until the school reopenings.
By then according to Prof Spector the prevalence will be down to levels last seen in May/June last year, when the schools reopened didn't they? Plus non essential trade and hospitality will remain shut. Plus tens of millions of the most vulnerable will be vaccinated.
If we can have prevalence down to May levels, tens of millions vaccinated and hospitality closed and we can't reopen schools without needing another lockdown then something has gone catastrophically wrong.
And it is certainly not the way to carry on if we value the Union.
But in practice, chippy English nationalism would win out in any attempt to set the terms in advance, to the great benefit of the SNP. Concessions could not be made in advance, because they would be unsaleable to the English nationalist public in advance of a vote for independence - they'd be difficult to sell afterwards, but marginally easier. You can already see the "not a ha'penny more" school of thought dominating on here. The whole thing would degenerate into an orgy of jock-bashing (no doubt with its counterpart of SNP grievance-mongering).
As we know, there should be massive surpluses in the U.K. by about June, we can happily see deliveries postponed to see other nations good at that point.
But the 8th is just three weeks off. Anyone jabbed next week will still be building immunity.
Which they unhesitatingly did as a result, despite facing hostile crowds demanding they vote against.
Of course, it was much better for Scotland than the alternative - bankruptcy and a simple satellite status. And still would be, for the matter of that. But I don’t think it felt that way to most Scots.
If you want it done swiftly then you need to do more than just order the vaccines, especially more than ordering them late. You need to invest in manufacturing, procurement, development, distribution etc. That's what the UK, USA and India and more have done.
“The lockdown has really driven down cases quite fast,” he said. “They’re basically halving about every 17 days at the moment, and that means in a month’s time – the prime minister’s talked about potentially reopening schools, we might have some bandwidth to do that, at least primary schools."
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/coronavirus-vaccine-uk-neil-ferguson-lockdown-b1801354.html
I am grossly simplifying, but Scotland maintained/retained a different church, it’s own aristocracy, it’s own legal and education systems, it’s own political parties etc.
It is the centralising and standardising instincts of the 20th century that have created modern Scottish nationalism.
As a NZer, I am reminded that my own country was formally intended under the Treaty of Waitangi as a partnership between the Crown and Maori, the latter of which did not surrender its essential “kawanatanga” or sovereignty.
Plus anyone jabbed next week, indeed anyone jabbed by the end of March, will have their vaccine protection by the end of April. Which is why an end of April lockdown is not going to happen.
The point was, a bit like with Corbyn 2017, not that the evidence of a Labour landslide wasn’t there but that people didn’t understand it. Even Attlee said to King George VI that he was surprised by the result.
But in practice, chippy EU bruised egos would win out in any attempt to set the terms in advance, to the great benefit of the UK Brexiteers. Concessions could not be made in advance, because they would be unsaleable to the European public in advance of a vote for independence - they'd be difficult to sell afterwards, but marginally easier. You can already see the "not a ha'penny more" school of thought dominating within the EU. The whole thing would degenerate into an orgy of Britain-bashing (no doubt with its counterpart of Brexiteer grievance-mongering).
In the absence of reliable data, scientists just cannot make a clear prediction from a model, other than with large uncertainties.
In March 2020. no-one could have predicted the course of the pandemic.
The countries that guessed right (NZ or Norway) did not use science to get what turned out to be the right answer. They had fearful, panicking leaders.
It turned out that panic was right.
https://www.barrons.com/articles/the-pandemic-could-be-effectively-over-by-april-j-p-morgan-says-heres-why-51613163599
Admittedly, it's hard to take an Olympian view when your negotiating partner is loudly abusing you, fantasising about your collapse and showing no realism in negotiations at all. But the EU should have tried.
Life savers: the amazing story of the Oxford/AstraZeneca Covid vaccine
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/14/life-savers-story-oxford-astrazeneca-coronavirus-vaccine-scientists
PB realised - despite being infested with obsessive incels - that COVID was *different*.
I stopped taking public transport in February 2020, though no scientist could yet “prove” it was dangerous.
Yawn.
Anyone referring to deep fried mars bars is disqualified.
I’m just too subtle for my own good.
It so happens you guessed right -- but there was no way to know it at the time, in the absence of any data on the actual characteristics of the virus.
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/scottish-news/6681101/woman-allegations-alex-salmond-accuser-conspiracy-utterly-absurd/amp/?
My take is It’s tied in with the misconception on the home front we were up for it, stiff upper lip, digging for victory etc. Truth was the population were weary, tired of the war, weighed down by the horrors and death and endless day to day struggle.
As they say covid is telling on mental health, imagine your city and factory’s have just been blanket incendiary bombed, you don’t even know who is lost in the flames, and the sirens could go anytime.
Opinion polling in such situation is impossible. Yet only in hindsight is 1945 result a shock result, not at the time. Politicians on all sides knew which way the wind was blowing.
Remember Jonathon Ashworth, it’s carnage out there.
I might caveat that by excepting your planned military invasion of Scotland, occasionally spurious use of polling, and your cheerleading for Trafalgar. But other than that A*!
NEW THREAD
The standard of the umpiring has been extremely good so far. Perversely, two of the three palpable errors in this match have been down to the third umpire - the stumping and the pad onto bat incident. Both may have been partly down to deficient technology.
Rohit definitely wasn't playing a shot but it's hard to judge in real time and different umpires have different ideas of what is constitutes a shot and what is just play acting. You would be more likely to get a consistent standard if the assessment were handed over the off-field man.
You really haven't thought through your tosh, have you? Well, I hope that's it...the alternative doesn't bear thinking about.
The worst elements of the UK/EU negotiations were a result of the 2017 elections leading to the paralysis of the 2017/19 Parliament. The UK had just about the worst possible Prime Minister and worst possible Chancellor for the negotiations as neither of them actually believed in what was being done.
Scottish independence won't be tackled from a "let's get this bloody stupid thing done, how can we minimise it's damage" perspective that May and especially Hammond and the 2017-19 Parliament had.
Scottish independence negotiations would be the pinnacle of the life's work for the SNP politicians who would be masters of all they survey politically.
There were already reports of China welding people into their apartments.
Scientists failed to apply common sense risk mitigation because the risk was right in front of their nose as opposed to at the end of a microscope.
Instead of running at the first swell of the tidal wave, they advised waiting until they could personally assess that the tidal wave was wet.
More likely they simply hadn’t forgiven the Tories for Appeasement and Unemployment before the war, which left Britain less well prepared than it should have been for a war that increasingly, thanks largely to Churchill’s own rhetoric, came to be seen as inevitable.
It's why the absolutist brickbat throwing from both sides - as if there was only one unanswerable version of the truth - is so pointless.
Let's accept it's complex and start from that.
On the one hand, seasonality of SARS-CoV-2 seems pretty limited at best, with the outbreaks north and south of the equator and during spring, summer, autumn, and winter being largely based on mobility data (official and de facto restrictions/lockdowns) rather than the season - but on the other hand, one would expect some benefit to weather that encourages people being outside and/or with windows open. It could be wishful thinking, of course, but I'd be a bit surprised if there was none.
Even if it's not very visible when R0 is high, we would expect the benefits to be considerably stronger when vaccines push transmission down such that the R without restrictions would be a lot lower.
On the cross-reactive coronaviruses - after some excitement in autumn when activity was seen (albeit the scientists involved strongly warned that inhibition of transmission and effective boosts to herd immunity were so unlikely as to be implausible), further study has shown no real discernable benefit. T-cells get a bit excited, but then don't actually do anything useful - they have low avidity for the virus (there's some weak evidence that it can make things worse - almost as if they assume they've recognised it, decided it's not a big deal, and buggered off again). Still, it would just have been a bonus if it had come off, and now we have something (vaccines) that DOES give real immunity.
Herd immunity-wise - they've found that antibody levels decline slower than expected, which is good for avoidance of re-infection or even transmission of the virus by the infected-and-recovered; bad for assumptions of higher levels of infection-and-recovery.
But while the levels of herd immunity will be lower than we'd have hoped from infection, restrictions act to multiply the effect of whatever herd immunity there is. If there's 25% immunity, that means R is pushed down to three quarters of what it would be without it. So restrictions that would otherwise push R down to 1.2 (September growth levels) would actually put it down to 0.9 (comfortably declining). I wouldn't be surprised if this was what had made the difference with controlling the B.1.1.7 variant (about four-thirds more infections, coupled with about 25% immunity leads to a wash - restrictions that would have controlled the original variant can now control the new one)
A couple of ideas to ease your concern Horse. Pre-1997 Blair was seen by many as "an inexperienced, lightweight Bambi". Unlike many people on here, I can't see past a good few years of bad (very, very bad) economic news. If it is as dire as I anticipate, the Conservatives will struggle.
Starmer does however need to exercise some enthusiasm and forward planning. Being the "quiet man" got IDS nowhere. Starmer's honeymoon is over.
Boris has to be very careful that the electorate don't align him with these years and want to put it all (and him) behind them.
I suppose what is most needed in deciding the Scexit question is realism about what is necessarily involved, so that there is a genuine debate within Scotland itself about pros and cons. There are genuine issues about borders, trade, currency, defence, debt, deficit, banking all of which cut both ways but can't just be relegated to afterwards.
BTW whatever chippy English nationalism is it seems in a much less advanced state that the Scottish variety. Not joining in, I live in England near the border where I can see Scottish hills from nearby, have family living on the border itself and family living and working in Scotland as well as England. Round here the issues of the Gretna to Berwick borders are live issues. also worth noting that every border constituency, on both sides, returns a Tory MP.
The Brian Rose campaign is now is great trouble I see. Having self-funded himself into a second-favourite position it now seems that he was just throwing money away. This isn't a good look for a future mayor.
What a clown!
Mind you I'm happy that he gifted me a few hundred pounds.