Let’s start to think about a post-pandemic PB gathering – politicalbetting.com

Benpointer said:

Vaccine anecdote:

Someone on our zoom bookclub yesterday evening said their husband (62, no health issues) had just gone online and booked his first jab.

So this morning I tried the same for me (60) and Mrs P (63).

Success! First jab for both of us booked for Monday at 9:30; 2nd jab also booked (for 17 May).

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/coronavirus-covid-19/coronavirus-vaccination/book-coronavirus-vaccination/

We each put in our NHS number, DoB, answered 'No' to the list of vulnerabilities, and hey presto - we were offered a range of nearby locations and dates.

It seems the online site is allowing cohort 7 to book now. (Good site too - very straightforward.)

TheScreamingEagles said:

DavidL said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Burgessian said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Burgessian said:

DavidL said:

Mental note. Never let Mr Allan speak in favour of anything I am in favour of, ever.

Allan is the MSP for Western Isles. Salmond fan, Angus MacNeil, is the MP for Western Isles. Wonder if there will be an attempt to remove Allan as the candidate by the local members aided and abetted by MacNeil.

MacNeil retweeted this earlier.

https://twitter.com/BrendanOHaraMP/status/1365294745963147265

I'm pretty sure that was ironic given his tweeting history. Suspect he despises O'Hara.

Indeed, iff the SNP do lose their majority in May then the internal warfare is going to be something to behold.

One side will say 'Sturgeon has cost us independence' and other side will say 'Salmond has cost us independence.'

If that happened Boris would once again have proved he has 9 lives and can comfortably ignore any demands for indyref2 while leaving the SNP to their civil war

There will be nothing civil about it, believe me.

I'm tempted to join the SNP to see the fun from the inside.

Because the SNP aren't blood and soil nationalists, they'll have no problem with me a working class kid in Sheffield joining the SNP.

I do have to admit I do miss being a member of a political party.

My knocking up the voters achievements are legendary and helpful to the SNP.

Alanbrooke said:

DavidL said:

DavidL said:

Maureen Watt trying to make Allan look good.

She is an HR professional and has the effrontery to say that neither mediation nor arbitration are suitable for HR matters. Just astonishing and, as Salmond pointed out, contrary to the Scottish government's policy in respect of current ministers.

We see little of the MSPs down here but if this lot are the cream of the crop theyre a shower of shite. Fraser is the only one with any gravitas and he's just having fun giving Salmond more ammo to fire.

It helps explain why Ian Blackford is seen as talent

DavidL said:

Alanbrooke said:

DavidL said:

DavidL said:

Maureen Watt trying to make Allan look good.

She is an HR professional and has the effrontery to say that neither mediation nor arbitration are suitable for HR matters. Just astonishing and, as Salmond pointed out, contrary to the Scottish government's policy in respect of current ministers.

We see little of the MSPs down here but if this lot are the cream of the crop theyre a shower of shite. Fraser is the only one with any gravitas and he's just having fun giving Salmond more ammo to fire.

It helps explain why Ian Blackford is seen as talent

Baillie is reasonable. Allan and Watt are on a wicket that makes that one in Ahmedabad look like a road.

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

rcs1000 said:

MaxPB said:

rcs1000 said:

MaxPB said:

TOPPING said:

MaxPB said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Well.

Britain and the European Union are nearing agreement on how to cooperate on financial market rules -- a first, limited step toward working together after Brexit.

The two sides are proposing a joint forum for discussing regulations and sharing information, though this accord won’t require them to open markets through so-called equivalence decisions, according to a draft memorandum of understanding seen by Bloomberg News.

The forum would lead to “informal consultations concerning decisions to adopt, suspend or withdraw equivalence,” according to the draft. Each side will keep the power to make and change its own rules.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-02-26/eu-u-k-near-post-brexit-accord-on-finance-regulation-forum

This does feel like the grown ups have realised the political point scoring helps no one and eventually we're going to need mutual recognition on regulations. Equivalence was never going to work for the city and the government has got a lot of defensive and offensive moves it can make should they deny it or move to take it away once given.

I noted Andrew Bailey fuming over the derivs clearing this week. Perhaps it was building up on all sides.

Yes maybe, I think over the next few months the political heat will die down and an effective mutual recognition will get announced as a footnote in some Friday afternoon briefing by the commission in August.

Derivatives clearing is a a difficult one, because clearing houses are implicitly guaranteed by central banks.

Wouldn't the BoE just take on that guarantee?

Effectively guaranteeing a Euro denominated contract between two European counterparties? That's a tough one.

What if it was the Italian government who owed (say) €250bn to LCH, and LCH owed €250bn to the German government. Would the BoE really print pounds to convert into Euros to pay the €250bn to the Germans?

Wasn't that exactly what they'd have done in recent years? So what's changed from the BoE's perspective?

Isn't that why the ECB wanted clearing in its jurisdiction before the UK fought that off?

Trust..;.

Pulpstar said:

Gallowgate said:

Benpointer said:

Vaccine anecdote:

Someone on our zoom bookclub yesterday evening said their husband (62, no health issues) had just gone online and booked his first jab.

So this morning I tried the same for me (60) and Mrs P (63).

Success! First jab for both of us booked for Monday at 9:30; 2nd jab also booked (for 17 May).

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/coronavirus-covid-19/coronavirus-vaccination/book-coronavirus-vaccination/

We each put in our NHS number, DoB, answered 'No' to the list of vulnerabilities, and hey presto - we were offered a range of nearby locations and dates.

It seems the online site is allowing cohort 7 to book now. (Good site too - very straightforward.)

Hmm. I'm group 6 but haven't heard anything yet. However the instructions on the site rule me out from using it?

EDIT: just tried it - "You are not currently eligible to book through this service"

Hmm get in touch with your GP ?

Fat_Steve said:

My Ears were burning... Hi Mike and everyone
Yes, I was abroad for a while, and now living in the boondocks, so I'm probably not the best person to organise a PB London pub session.
A few comments
- I think most people want a pub that's reasonably spacious, not too noisy, and well-ventilated. I think it helps to physically visit a pub and speak to the manager - Email or phone arrangements can suddenly turn a bit vague, in some pubs, at the most inconvenient time.
- A lot of pubs have a bunch of admin around booking places, paying deposits, minimum spend etc. I always tried to look for places that didn't overdo the admin - If you can find a good one, "organising" is not a big onerous task.

- I'm posting less but continuously lurking. I'm not "not posting" for any particular reason - simply that the site is so good and broad in its views - whenever I have a political thought, someone else has already had it and expressed it better than I could ..

Anyone fancy PB drinks in Cambridge?

MaxPB said:

rcs1000 said:

MaxPB said:

rcs1000 said:

MaxPB said:

TOPPING said:

MaxPB said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Well.

Britain and the European Union are nearing agreement on how to cooperate on financial market rules -- a first, limited step toward working together after Brexit.

The two sides are proposing a joint forum for discussing regulations and sharing information, though this accord won’t require them to open markets through so-called equivalence decisions, according to a draft memorandum of understanding seen by Bloomberg News.

The forum would lead to “informal consultations concerning decisions to adopt, suspend or withdraw equivalence,” according to the draft. Each side will keep the power to make and change its own rules.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-02-26/eu-u-k-near-post-brexit-accord-on-finance-regulation-forum

This does feel like the grown ups have realised the political point scoring helps no one and eventually we're going to need mutual recognition on regulations. Equivalence was never going to work for the city and the government has got a lot of defensive and offensive moves it can make should they deny it or move to take it away once given.

I noted Andrew Bailey fuming over the derivs clearing this week. Perhaps it was building up on all sides.

Yes maybe, I think over the next few months the political heat will die down and an effective mutual recognition will get announced as a footnote in some Friday afternoon briefing by the commission in August.

Derivatives clearing is a a difficult one, because clearing houses are implicitly guaranteed by central banks.

Wouldn't the BoE just take on that guarantee?

Effectively guaranteeing a Euro denominated contract between two European counterparties? That's a tough one.

What if it was the Italian government who owed (say) €250bn to LCH, and LCH owed €250bn to the German government. Would the BoE really print pounds to convert into Euros to pay the €250bn to the Germans?

Agree that it's not a palatable idea but it has always been the the nuclear option.

Gallowgate said:

Benpointer said:

Vaccine anecdote:

Someone on our zoom bookclub yesterday evening said their husband (62, no health issues) had just gone online and booked his first jab.

So this morning I tried the same for me (60) and Mrs P (63).

Success! First jab for both of us booked for Monday at 9:30; 2nd jab also booked (for 17 May).

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/coronavirus-covid-19/coronavirus-vaccination/book-coronavirus-vaccination/

We each put in our NHS number, DoB, answered 'No' to the list of vulnerabilities, and hey presto - we were offered a range of nearby locations and dates.

It seems the online site is allowing cohort 7 to book now. (Good site too - very straightforward.)

Hmm. I'm group 6 but haven't heard anything yet. However the instructions on the site rule me out from using it?

EDIT: just tried it - "You are not currently eligible to book through this service"

Alanbrooke said:

DavidL said:

DavidL said:

Maureen Watt trying to make Allan look good.

She is an HR professional and has the effrontery to say that neither mediation nor arbitration are suitable for HR matters. Just astonishing and, as Salmond pointed out, contrary to the Scottish government's policy in respect of current ministers.

We see little of the MSPs down here but if this lot are the cream of the crop theyre a shower of shite. Fraser is the only one with any gravitas and he's just having fun giving Salmond more ammo to fire.

It helps explain why Ian Blackford is seen as talent

ExiledInScotland said:

Alanbrooke said:

DavidL said:

Alanbrooke said:

DavidL said:

DavidL said:

Maureen Watt trying to make Allan look good.

She is an HR professional and has the effrontery to say that neither mediation nor arbitration are suitable for HR matters. Just astonishing and, as Salmond pointed out, contrary to the Scottish government's policy in respect of current ministers.

We see little of the MSPs down here but if this lot are the cream of the crop theyre a shower of shite. Fraser is the only one with any gravitas and he's just having fun giving Salmond more ammo to fire.

It helps explain why Ian Blackford is seen as talent

Baillie is reasonable. Allan and Watt are on a wicket that makes that one in Ahmedabad look like a road.

you have to say the pressure to reveal the missing documents will soon become irresistable

if it doesnt get published it will get leaked.

If they get leaked, the Crown Office will just forbid the committee from looking at them

rcs1000 said:

MaxPB said:

rcs1000 said:

MaxPB said:

rcs1000 said:

MaxPB said:

TOPPING said:

MaxPB said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Well.

Britain and the European Union are nearing agreement on how to cooperate on financial market rules -- a first, limited step toward working together after Brexit.

The two sides are proposing a joint forum for discussing regulations and sharing information, though this accord won’t require them to open markets through so-called equivalence decisions, according to a draft memorandum of understanding seen by Bloomberg News.

The forum would lead to “informal consultations concerning decisions to adopt, suspend or withdraw equivalence,” according to the draft. Each side will keep the power to make and change its own rules.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-02-26/eu-u-k-near-post-brexit-accord-on-finance-regulation-forum

This does feel like the grown ups have realised the political point scoring helps no one and eventually we're going to need mutual recognition on regulations. Equivalence was never going to work for the city and the government has got a lot of defensive and offensive moves it can make should they deny it or move to take it away once given.

I noted Andrew Bailey fuming over the derivs clearing this week. Perhaps it was building up on all sides.

Yes maybe, I think over the next few months the political heat will die down and an effective mutual recognition will get announced as a footnote in some Friday afternoon briefing by the commission in August.

Derivatives clearing is a a difficult one, because clearing houses are implicitly guaranteed by central banks.

Wouldn't the BoE just take on that guarantee?

Effectively guaranteeing a Euro denominated contract between two European counterparties? That's a tough one.

What if it was the Italian government who owed (say) €250bn to LCH, and LCH owed €250bn to the German government. Would the BoE really print pounds to convert into Euros to pay the €250bn to the Germans?

Agree that it's not a palatable idea but it has always been the the nuclear option.

Personally, I think derivatives clearing has exactly zero interaction with the real work of the City, that it employs virtually no-one, that it pays close to zero taxes, and it carries enormous (government shouldered) risks. The only reason you want it is to willy wave.

I'd be begging the Belgians (or whoever) to take it off my hands.

turbotubbs said:

AlastairMeeks said:

kle4 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Leon said:

DavidL said:

Leon said:

I see the Guardian says the Begum ruling is “controversial”

This is one of those special Guardian word-definitions, where “controversial” means “it dismays three people in Islington”

The view of the court about the respect to be given to the views and judgment of Ministers is something of a throw back and may cause ripples. It is not easy to reconcile that view with the unanimous view of the Court in the Prorogation case, to take an example.

The court over-reached with the prorogation case; this time they are exactly right. These difficult executive decisions must be made by people who are democratically accountable

These two cases are easily reconciled.

In both cases the court found it had the power to intervene. It took the view that it should intervene in the prorogation case because the government was taking the piss (which it was): the government's refusal to give any account under oath for its actions may well have proven fatal to its case. You seem to have forgotten that at the time of the purported prorogation Britain had a Prime Minister who had not been elected at a general election, who did not command a majority in Parliament and indeed had not won a vote in Parliament pursuing a policy that had not been put before the British public and using prorogation as a tool to impose that irreversibly.

In the present case it took the view that the government had acted within the wide latitude granted to governments when taking decisions. Which, given that the Home Secretary was exercising statutory powers given to them in an extreme case, is not all that surprising.

The main consequence of the prorogation case was political. The public decided, unlike in the USA, that they were AOK with self-coups. As a result Britain now has a government with a light attachment to democracy and an extreme aversion to any form of accountability enthusiastically supported by a self-radicalised posse who are quite willing to overlook anything it does, up to and including the avoidable deaths of tens of thousands.

Nice example of ensuring people wont pay attention to your solidly put points because you wanted to indulge in unrelated theatrical condemnation.

Now you can pretend to be affronted when people ignore your good first paras, even though that was presumably your intention and you want Brexiteers to rage at you so you can respond in turn.

Well, each of us has fun in their own way i suppose.

The last bit is the important bit. Tens of thousands of people have died avoidable deaths, but the government's supporters simply don't think that's as important as supporting the government.

I am staggered at the self-degradation of these partisans.

Pot meet kettle. I assume the Italians, French, Germans, Americans (need I go on?) who died were all unavoidable deaths? Or maybe. just maybe there is a nasty virus in worldwide circulation causing epic problems to all governments. Ours has not performed well, I think most would accept that, but they are not the only ones to struggle in this pandemic. At least we have one of the most open and trustworthy reporting systems. How many Chinese died in Wuhan province? How many Spaniards have died (unclear reporting, and a suggestion that that true figure is far higher than the official one?
I get that you hate Brexit and the current government, but you are one of the most blinkered on this site. You are an intelligent man, but your own lack of self awareness is stark.

MattW said:

TOPPING said:

You're in the Lakes? Surely book out @Cyclefree's daughter's place and spend big!

I second this, and we are unanimous in that.

Are many PBers in reach of the Lakes for an event? PB levelling up policy.

Or is this not doable?

Alanbrooke said:

DavidL said:

Alanbrooke said:

DavidL said:

DavidL said:

Maureen Watt trying to make Allan look good.

She is an HR professional and has the effrontery to say that neither mediation nor arbitration are suitable for HR matters. Just astonishing and, as Salmond pointed out, contrary to the Scottish government's policy in respect of current ministers.

We see little of the MSPs down here but if this lot are the cream of the crop theyre a shower of shite. Fraser is the only one with any gravitas and he's just having fun giving Salmond more ammo to fire.

It helps explain why Ian Blackford is seen as talent

Baillie is reasonable. Allan and Watt are on a wicket that makes that one in Ahmedabad look like a road.

you have to say the pressure to reveal the missing documents will soon become irresistable

if it doesnt get published it will get leaked.

AlastairMeeks said:

turbotubbs said:

AlastairMeeks said:

kle4 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Leon said:

DavidL said:

Leon said:

I see the Guardian says the Begum ruling is “controversial”

This is one of those special Guardian word-definitions, where “controversial” means “it dismays three people in Islington”

The view of the court about the respect to be given to the views and judgment of Ministers is something of a throw back and may cause ripples. It is not easy to reconcile that view with the unanimous view of the Court in the Prorogation case, to take an example.

The court over-reached with the prorogation case; this time they are exactly right. These difficult executive decisions must be made by people who are democratically accountable

These two cases are easily reconciled.

In both cases the court found it had the power to intervene. It took the view that it should intervene in the prorogation case because the government was taking the piss (which it was): the government's refusal to give any account under oath for its actions may well have proven fatal to its case. You seem to have forgotten that at the time of the purported prorogation Britain had a Prime Minister who had not been elected at a general election, who did not command a majority in Parliament and indeed had not won a vote in Parliament pursuing a policy that had not been put before the British public and using prorogation as a tool to impose that irreversibly.

In the present case it took the view that the government had acted within the wide latitude granted to governments when taking decisions. Which, given that the Home Secretary was exercising statutory powers given to them in an extreme case, is not all that surprising.

The main consequence of the prorogation case was political. The public decided, unlike in the USA, that they were AOK with self-coups. As a result Britain now has a government with a light attachment to democracy and an extreme aversion to any form of accountability enthusiastically supported by a self-radicalised posse who are quite willing to overlook anything it does, up to and including the avoidable deaths of tens of thousands.

Nice example of ensuring people wont pay attention to your solidly put points because you wanted to indulge in unrelated theatrical condemnation.

Now you can pretend to be affronted when people ignore your good first paras, even though that was presumably your intention and you want Brexiteers to rage at you so you can respond in turn.

Well, each of us has fun in their own way i suppose.

The last bit is the important bit. Tens of thousands of people have died avoidable deaths, but the government's supporters simply don't think that's as important as supporting the government.

I am staggered at the self-degradation of these partisans.

Pot meet kettle. I assume the Italians, French, Germans, Americans (need I go on?) who died were all unavoidable deaths? Or maybe. just maybe there is a nasty virus in worldwide circulation causing epic problems to all governments. Ours has not performed well, I think most would accept that, but they are not the only ones to struggle in this pandemic. At least we have one of the most open and trustworthy reporting systems. How many Chinese died in Wuhan province? How many Spaniards have died (unclear reporting, and a suggestion that that true figure is far higher than the official one?
I get that you hate Brexit and the current government, but you are one of the most blinkered on this site. You are an intelligent man, but your own lack of self awareness is stark.

Britain has done exceptionally badly, in the bottommost tier of countries in its response to Covid-19. Only the most crazed zealots would suggest otherwise.

Sadly, many of those crazed zealots infest this site. Here's the sort of problem that they're determined to avoid discussing:

https://twitter.com/peterjukes/status/1364961983964053511?s=20

DavidL said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Burgessian said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Burgessian said:

DavidL said:

Mental note. Never let Mr Allan speak in favour of anything I am in favour of, ever.

Allan is the MSP for Western Isles. Salmond fan, Angus MacNeil, is the MP for Western Isles. Wonder if there will be an attempt to remove Allan as the candidate by the local members aided and abetted by MacNeil.

MacNeil retweeted this earlier.

https://twitter.com/BrendanOHaraMP/status/1365294745963147265

I'm pretty sure that was ironic given his tweeting history. Suspect he despises O'Hara.

Indeed, iff the SNP do lose their majority in May then the internal warfare is going to be something to behold.

One side will say 'Sturgeon has cost us independence' and other side will say 'Salmond has cost us independence.'

If that happened Boris would once again have proved he has 9 lives and can comfortably ignore any demands for indyref2 while leaving the SNP to their civil war

There will be nothing civil about it, believe me.

FrancisUrquhart said:

New slide operator please.....

turbotubbs said:

AlastairMeeks said:

turbotubbs said:

AlastairMeeks said:

kle4 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Leon said:

DavidL said:

Leon said:

I see the Guardian says the Begum ruling is “controversial”

This is one of those special Guardian word-definitions, where “controversial” means “it dismays three people in Islington”

The view of the court about the respect to be given to the views and judgment of Ministers is something of a throw back and may cause ripples. It is not easy to reconcile that view with the unanimous view of the Court in the Prorogation case, to take an example.

The court over-reached with the prorogation case; this time they are exactly right. These difficult executive decisions must be made by people who are democratically accountable

These two cases are easily reconciled.

In both cases the court found it had the power to intervene. It took the view that it should intervene in the prorogation case because the government was taking the piss (which it was): the government's refusal to give any account under oath for its actions may well have proven fatal to its case. You seem to have forgotten that at the time of the purported prorogation Britain had a Prime Minister who had not been elected at a general election, who did not command a majority in Parliament and indeed had not won a vote in Parliament pursuing a policy that had not been put before the British public and using prorogation as a tool to impose that irreversibly.

In the present case it took the view that the government had acted within the wide latitude granted to governments when taking decisions. Which, given that the Home Secretary was exercising statutory powers given to them in an extreme case, is not all that surprising.

The main consequence of the prorogation case was political. The public decided, unlike in the USA, that they were AOK with self-coups. As a result Britain now has a government with a light attachment to democracy and an extreme aversion to any form of accountability enthusiastically supported by a self-radicalised posse who are quite willing to overlook anything it does, up to and including the avoidable deaths of tens of thousands.

Nice example of ensuring people wont pay attention to your solidly put points because you wanted to indulge in unrelated theatrical condemnation.

Now you can pretend to be affronted when people ignore your good first paras, even though that was presumably your intention and you want Brexiteers to rage at you so you can respond in turn.

Well, each of us has fun in their own way i suppose.

The last bit is the important bit. Tens of thousands of people have died avoidable deaths, but the government's supporters simply don't think that's as important as supporting the government.

I am staggered at the self-degradation of these partisans.

Pot meet kettle. I assume the Italians, French, Germans, Americans (need I go on?) who died were all unavoidable deaths? Or maybe. just maybe there is a nasty virus in worldwide circulation causing epic problems to all governments. Ours has not performed well, I think most would accept that, but they are not the only ones to struggle in this pandemic. At least we have one of the most open and trustworthy reporting systems. How many Chinese died in Wuhan province? How many Spaniards have died (unclear reporting, and a suggestion that that true figure is far higher than the official one?
I get that you hate Brexit and the current government, but you are one of the most blinkered on this site. You are an intelligent man, but your own lack of self awareness is stark.

Britain has done exceptionally badly, in the bottommost tier of countries in its response to Covid-19. Only the most crazed zealots would suggest otherwise.

Sadly, many of those crazed zealots infest this site. Here's the sort of problem that they're determined to avoid discussing:

https://twitter.com/peterjukes/status/1364961983964053511?s=20

I am not claiming we have done well. Only a lunatic would. We have been hit extremely hard and I hope the resulting enquiries will help to understand why.

BUT

Our death rate to the current time is better than Belgium, Czechia and Slovenia, and slightly worse than Italy, Portugal, USA, Hungary and Spain. At the current time. Lets see where we end up.

My point is that NO-ONE is doing particularly at preventing "avoidable" deaths. You clearly feel we are by far and away the worst country, but the evidence doesn't fit that, and as I said, I have doubts over some countries reporting (Russia for instance).

AlastairMeeks said:

DavidL said:

AlastairMeeks said:

turbotubbs said:

AlastairMeeks said:

kle4 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Leon said:

DavidL said:

Leon said:

I see the Guardian says the Begum ruling is “controversial”

This is one of those special Guardian word-definitions, where “controversial” means “it dismays three people in Islington”

The view of the court about the respect to be given to the views and judgment of Ministers is something of a throw back and may cause ripples. It is not easy to reconcile that view with the unanimous view of the Court in the Prorogation case, to take an example.

The court over-reached with the prorogation case; this time they are exactly right. These difficult executive decisions must be made by people who are democratically accountable

These two cases are easily reconciled.

In both cases the court found it had the power to intervene. It took the view that it should intervene in the prorogation case because the government was taking the piss (which it was): the government's refusal to give any account under oath for its actions may well have proven fatal to its case. You seem to have forgotten that at the time of the purported prorogation Britain had a Prime Minister who had not been elected at a general election, who did not command a majority in Parliament and indeed had not won a vote in Parliament pursuing a policy that had not been put before the British public and using prorogation as a tool to impose that irreversibly.

In the present case it took the view that the government had acted within the wide latitude granted to governments when taking decisions. Which, given that the Home Secretary was exercising statutory powers given to them in an extreme case, is not all that surprising.

The main consequence of the prorogation case was political. The public decided, unlike in the USA, that they were AOK with self-coups. As a result Britain now has a government with a light attachment to democracy and an extreme aversion to any form of accountability enthusiastically supported by a self-radicalised posse who are quite willing to overlook anything it does, up to and including the avoidable deaths of tens of thousands.

Nice example of ensuring people wont pay attention to your solidly put points because you wanted to indulge in unrelated theatrical condemnation.

Now you can pretend to be affronted when people ignore your good first paras, even though that was presumably your intention and you want Brexiteers to rage at you so you can respond in turn.

Well, each of us has fun in their own way i suppose.

The last bit is the important bit. Tens of thousands of people have died avoidable deaths, but the government's supporters simply don't think that's as important as supporting the government.

I am staggered at the self-degradation of these partisans.

Pot meet kettle. I assume the Italians, French, Germans, Americans (need I go on?) who died were all unavoidable deaths? Or maybe. just maybe there is a nasty virus in worldwide circulation causing epic problems to all governments. Ours has not performed well, I think most would accept that, but they are not the only ones to struggle in this pandemic. At least we have one of the most open and trustworthy reporting systems. How many Chinese died in Wuhan province? How many Spaniards have died (unclear reporting, and a suggestion that that true figure is far higher than the official one?
I get that you hate Brexit and the current government, but you are one of the most blinkered on this site. You are an intelligent man, but your own lack of self awareness is stark.

Britain has done exceptionally badly, in the bottommost tier of countries in its response to Covid-19. Only the most crazed zealots would suggest otherwise.

Sadly, many of those crazed zealots infest this site. Here's the sort of problem that they're determined to avoid discussing:

https://twitter.com/peterjukes/status/1364961983964053511?s=20

I raised this this morning but the hypothesis of that comment that this is something that could have been avoided is at best unproven. As far as we can tell what happened was that Kent variant took a much greater hold in this country than elsewhere, it was far more infectious and possibly marginally more dangerous.

Your default assumption that this was a consequence of government incompetence or ineptitude may prove to be correct but it is an assumption. The UK has the best genomic analysis in the world. By that time (December) it had amongst the best test and trace and was one of the very highest levels of testing. And yet we were still caught with our trousers down. Incompetence? Maybe but it is possible that we did our very best and were simply unlucky.

My memory is good enough to remember early December, when cases in Britain were obviously rising and the government was resisting tightening up. I remember the Prime Minister mocking the Leader of the Opposition for suggesting the same thing.

It was obvious what was happening at the time. And untold thousands paid with their lives because the Prime Minister couldn't bear to do the unpopular but necessary thing.

DavidL said:

AlastairMeeks said:

DavidL said:

AlastairMeeks said:

turbotubbs said:

AlastairMeeks said:

kle4 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Leon said:

DavidL said:

Leon said:

I see the Guardian says the Begum ruling is “controversial”

This is one of those special Guardian word-definitions, where “controversial” means “it dismays three people in Islington”

The view of the court about the respect to be given to the views and judgment of Ministers is something of a throw back and may cause ripples. It is not easy to reconcile that view with the unanimous view of the Court in the Prorogation case, to take an example.

The court over-reached with the prorogation case; this time they are exactly right. These difficult executive decisions must be made by people who are democratically accountable

These two cases are easily reconciled.

In both cases the court found it had the power to intervene. It took the view that it should intervene in the prorogation case because the government was taking the piss (which it was): the government's refusal to give any account under oath for its actions may well have proven fatal to its case. You seem to have forgotten that at the time of the purported prorogation Britain had a Prime Minister who had not been elected at a general election, who did not command a majority in Parliament and indeed had not won a vote in Parliament pursuing a policy that had not been put before the British public and using prorogation as a tool to impose that irreversibly.

In the present case it took the view that the government had acted within the wide latitude granted to governments when taking decisions. Which, given that the Home Secretary was exercising statutory powers given to them in an extreme case, is not all that surprising.

The main consequence of the prorogation case was political. The public decided, unlike in the USA, that they were AOK with self-coups. As a result Britain now has a government with a light attachment to democracy and an extreme aversion to any form of accountability enthusiastically supported by a self-radicalised posse who are quite willing to overlook anything it does, up to and including the avoidable deaths of tens of thousands.

Nice example of ensuring people wont pay attention to your solidly put points because you wanted to indulge in unrelated theatrical condemnation.

Now you can pretend to be affronted when people ignore your good first paras, even though that was presumably your intention and you want Brexiteers to rage at you so you can respond in turn.

Well, each of us has fun in their own way i suppose.

The last bit is the important bit. Tens of thousands of people have died avoidable deaths, but the government's supporters simply don't think that's as important as supporting the government.

I am staggered at the self-degradation of these partisans.

Pot meet kettle. I assume the Italians, French, Germans, Americans (need I go on?) who died were all unavoidable deaths? Or maybe. just maybe there is a nasty virus in worldwide circulation causing epic problems to all governments. Ours has not performed well, I think most would accept that, but they are not the only ones to struggle in this pandemic. At least we have one of the most open and trustworthy reporting systems. How many Chinese died in Wuhan province? How many Spaniards have died (unclear reporting, and a suggestion that that true figure is far higher than the official one?
I get that you hate Brexit and the current government, but you are one of the most blinkered on this site. You are an intelligent man, but your own lack of self awareness is stark.

Britain has done exceptionally badly, in the bottommost tier of countries in its response to Covid-19. Only the most crazed zealots would suggest otherwise.

Sadly, many of those crazed zealots infest this site. Here's the sort of problem that they're determined to avoid discussing:

https://twitter.com/peterjukes/status/1364961983964053511?s=20

I raised this this morning but the hypothesis of that comment that this is something that could have been avoided is at best unproven. As far as we can tell what happened was that Kent variant took a much greater hold in this country than elsewhere, it was far more infectious and possibly marginally more dangerous.

Your default assumption that this was a consequence of government incompetence or ineptitude may prove to be correct but it is an assumption. The UK has the best genomic analysis in the world. By that time (December) it had amongst the best test and trace and was one of the very highest levels of testing. And yet we were still caught with our trousers down. Incompetence? Maybe but it is possible that we did our very best and were simply unlucky.

My memory is good enough to remember early December, when cases in Britain were obviously rising and the government was resisting tightening up. I remember the Prime Minister mocking the Leader of the Opposition for suggesting the same thing.

It was obvious what was happening at the time. And untold thousands paid with their lives because the Prime Minister couldn't bear to do the unpopular but necessary thing.

I don't remember it being obvious or indeed any actual relaxation in December. There was an argument about Christmas where clearly Boris wanted a relaxation and which he eventually had to concede was inappropriate and cancelled it. What happened was that the underlying facts changed because of the Kent variant. That led to the spike in cases and then deaths in January and early February.

williamglenn said:

France also made a point of easing restrictions for Christmas. You can say it was a mistake but the unique factor in the UK was the emergence of a more transmissible variant.

kle4 said:

DavidL said:

AlastairMeeks said:

DavidL said:

AlastairMeeks said:

turbotubbs said:

AlastairMeeks said:

kle4 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Leon said:

DavidL said:

Leon said:

I see the Guardian says the Begum ruling is “controversial”

This is one of those special Guardian word-definitions, where “controversial” means “it dismays three people in Islington”

The view of the court about the respect to be given to the views and judgment of Ministers is something of a throw back and may cause ripples. It is not easy to reconcile that view with the unanimous view of the Court in the Prorogation case, to take an example.

The court over-reached with the prorogation case; this time they are exactly right. These difficult executive decisions must be made by people who are democratically accountable

These two cases are easily reconciled.

In both cases the court found it had the power to intervene. It took the view that it should intervene in the prorogation case because the government was taking the piss (which it was): the government's refusal to give any account under oath for its actions may well have proven fatal to its case. You seem to have forgotten that at the time of the purported prorogation Britain had a Prime Minister who had not been elected at a general election, who did not command a majority in Parliament and indeed had not won a vote in Parliament pursuing a policy that had not been put before the British public and using prorogation as a tool to impose that irreversibly.

In the present case it took the view that the government had acted within the wide latitude granted to governments when taking decisions. Which, given that the Home Secretary was exercising statutory powers given to them in an extreme case, is not all that surprising.

The main consequence of the prorogation case was political. The public decided, unlike in the USA, that they were AOK with self-coups. As a result Britain now has a government with a light attachment to democracy and an extreme aversion to any form of accountability enthusiastically supported by a self-radicalised posse who are quite willing to overlook anything it does, up to and including the avoidable deaths of tens of thousands.

Nice example of ensuring people wont pay attention to your solidly put points because you wanted to indulge in unrelated theatrical condemnation.

Now you can pretend to be affronted when people ignore your good first paras, even though that was presumably your intention and you want Brexiteers to rage at you so you can respond in turn.

Well, each of us has fun in their own way i suppose.

The last bit is the important bit. Tens of thousands of people have died avoidable deaths, but the government's supporters simply don't think that's as important as supporting the government.

I am staggered at the self-degradation of these partisans.

Pot meet kettle. I assume the Italians, French, Germans, Americans (need I go on?) who died were all unavoidable deaths? Or maybe. just maybe there is a nasty virus in worldwide circulation causing epic problems to all governments. Ours has not performed well, I think most would accept that, but they are not the only ones to struggle in this pandemic. At least we have one of the most open and trustworthy reporting systems. How many Chinese died in Wuhan province? How many Spaniards have died (unclear reporting, and a suggestion that that true figure is far higher than the official one?
I get that you hate Brexit and the current government, but you are one of the most blinkered on this site. You are an intelligent man, but your own lack of self awareness is stark.

Britain has done exceptionally badly, in the bottommost tier of countries in its response to Covid-19. Only the most crazed zealots would suggest otherwise.

Sadly, many of those crazed zealots infest this site. Here's the sort of problem that they're determined to avoid discussing:

https://twitter.com/peterjukes/status/1364961983964053511?s=20

I raised this this morning but the hypothesis of that comment that this is something that could have been avoided is at best unproven. As far as we can tell what happened was that Kent variant took a much greater hold in this country than elsewhere, it was far more infectious and possibly marginally more dangerous.

Your default assumption that this was a consequence of government incompetence or ineptitude may prove to be correct but it is an assumption. The UK has the best genomic analysis in the world. By that time (December) it had amongst the best test and trace and was one of the very highest levels of testing. And yet we were still caught with our trousers down. Incompetence? Maybe but it is possible that we did our very best and were simply unlucky.

My memory is good enough to remember early December, when cases in Britain were obviously rising and the government was resisting tightening up. I remember the Prime Minister mocking the Leader of the Opposition for suggesting the same thing.

It was obvious what was happening at the time. And untold thousands paid with their lives because the Prime Minister couldn't bear to do the unpopular but necessary thing.

I don't remember it being obvious or indeed any actual relaxation in December. There was an argument about Christmas where clearly Boris wanted a relaxation and which he eventually had to concede was inappropriate and cancelled it. What happened was that the underlying facts changed because of the Kent variant. That led to the spike in cases and then deaths in January and early February.

My recollection is closer to AlistairMeeks on this one - we had relaxed a bit from November, cases were creeping up, and all the talk was opening up for a Christmas break essentially. Eventually it was realised that was a very stupid idea, but I think it improbable the planned position had no impact. How much impact I think is hard to say. Can it really all be down to Kent?

January was bloody awful though, far worse than anticipated.

AlastairMeeks said:

turbotubbs said:

AlastairMeeks said:

turbotubbs said:

AlastairMeeks said:

kle4 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Leon said:

DavidL said:

Leon said:

I see the Guardian says the Begum ruling is “controversial”

This is one of those special Guardian word-definitions, where “controversial” means “it dismays three people in Islington”

The view of the court about the respect to be given to the views and judgment of Ministers is something of a throw back and may cause ripples. It is not easy to reconcile that view with the unanimous view of the Court in the Prorogation case, to take an example.

The court over-reached with the prorogation case; this time they are exactly right. These difficult executive decisions must be made by people who are democratically accountable

These two cases are easily reconciled.

In both cases the court found it had the power to intervene. It took the view that it should intervene in the prorogation case because the government was taking the piss (which it was): the government's refusal to give any account under oath for its actions may well have proven fatal to its case. You seem to have forgotten that at the time of the purported prorogation Britain had a Prime Minister who had not been elected at a general election, who did not command a majority in Parliament and indeed had not won a vote in Parliament pursuing a policy that had not been put before the British public and using prorogation as a tool to impose that irreversibly.

In the present case it took the view that the government had acted within the wide latitude granted to governments when taking decisions. Which, given that the Home Secretary was exercising statutory powers given to them in an extreme case, is not all that surprising.

The main consequence of the prorogation case was political. The public decided, unlike in the USA, that they were AOK with self-coups. As a result Britain now has a government with a light attachment to democracy and an extreme aversion to any form of accountability enthusiastically supported by a self-radicalised posse who are quite willing to overlook anything it does, up to and including the avoidable deaths of tens of thousands.

Nice example of ensuring people wont pay attention to your solidly put points because you wanted to indulge in unrelated theatrical condemnation.

Now you can pretend to be affronted when people ignore your good first paras, even though that was presumably your intention and you want Brexiteers to rage at you so you can respond in turn.

Well, each of us has fun in their own way i suppose.

The last bit is the important bit. Tens of thousands of people have died avoidable deaths, but the government's supporters simply don't think that's as important as supporting the government.

I am staggered at the self-degradation of these partisans.

Pot meet kettle. I assume the Italians, French, Germans, Americans (need I go on?) who died were all unavoidable deaths? Or maybe. just maybe there is a nasty virus in worldwide circulation causing epic problems to all governments. Ours has not performed well, I think most would accept that, but they are not the only ones to struggle in this pandemic. At least we have one of the most open and trustworthy reporting systems. How many Chinese died in Wuhan province? How many Spaniards have died (unclear reporting, and a suggestion that that true figure is far higher than the official one?
I get that you hate Brexit and the current government, but you are one of the most blinkered on this site. You are an intelligent man, but your own lack of self awareness is stark.

Britain has done exceptionally badly, in the bottommost tier of countries in its response to Covid-19. Only the most crazed zealots would suggest otherwise.

Sadly, many of those crazed zealots infest this site. Here's the sort of problem that they're determined to avoid discussing:

https://twitter.com/peterjukes/status/1364961983964053511?s=20

I am not claiming we have done well. Only a lunatic would. We have been hit extremely hard and I hope the resulting enquiries will help to understand why.

BUT

Our death rate to the current time is better than Belgium, Czechia and Slovenia, and slightly worse than Italy, Portugal, USA, Hungary and Spain. At the current time. Lets see where we end up.

My point is that NO-ONE is doing particularly at preventing "avoidable" deaths. You clearly feel we are by far and away the worst country, but the evidence doesn't fit that, and as I said, I have doubts over some countries reporting (Russia for instance).

Your point is bullshit. The day that Britain measures its public health performance against Brazil and Russia will be a very sad day indeed, so cavilling about statistics in countries like that is pathetic.

By any measure Britain did exceptionally badly. You have named the three countries with a worse death rate in an attempt to suggest Britain is mid table. It is fourth worst in the world (and set to overtake Slovenia imminently). It is closer to the death rate in worst-performing Belgium than to fifth-placed Italy. If Britain had done as well to date as "slightly worse" Italy, more than 14,000 people in Britain would not have died of Covid-19.

Britain's success at vaccination is fantastic. It in no way erases the appalling and avoidable errors that the government has repeatedly made in every other aspect of its handling of this disease. Anyone with a conscience should feel shame at that awful failure of our most vulnerable.

But far too many on this site want only to sweep it under the carpet.

AlastairMeeks said:

turbotubbs said:

AlastairMeeks said:

turbotubbs said:

AlastairMeeks said:

kle4 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Leon said:

DavidL said:

Leon said:

I see the Guardian says the Begum ruling is “controversial”

This is one of those special Guardian word-definitions, where “controversial” means “it dismays three people in Islington”

The view of the court about the respect to be given to the views and judgment of Ministers is something of a throw back and may cause ripples. It is not easy to reconcile that view with the unanimous view of the Court in the Prorogation case, to take an example.

The court over-reached with the prorogation case; this time they are exactly right. These difficult executive decisions must be made by people who are democratically accountable

These two cases are easily reconciled.

In both cases the court found it had the power to intervene. It took the view that it should intervene in the prorogation case because the government was taking the piss (which it was): the government's refusal to give any account under oath for its actions may well have proven fatal to its case. You seem to have forgotten that at the time of the purported prorogation Britain had a Prime Minister who had not been elected at a general election, who did not command a majority in Parliament and indeed had not won a vote in Parliament pursuing a policy that had not been put before the British public and using prorogation as a tool to impose that irreversibly.

In the present case it took the view that the government had acted within the wide latitude granted to governments when taking decisions. Which, given that the Home Secretary was exercising statutory powers given to them in an extreme case, is not all that surprising.

The main consequence of the prorogation case was political. The public decided, unlike in the USA, that they were AOK with self-coups. As a result Britain now has a government with a light attachment to democracy and an extreme aversion to any form of accountability enthusiastically supported by a self-radicalised posse who are quite willing to overlook anything it does, up to and including the avoidable deaths of tens of thousands.

Nice example of ensuring people wont pay attention to your solidly put points because you wanted to indulge in unrelated theatrical condemnation.

Now you can pretend to be affronted when people ignore your good first paras, even though that was presumably your intention and you want Brexiteers to rage at you so you can respond in turn.

Well, each of us has fun in their own way i suppose.

The last bit is the important bit. Tens of thousands of people have died avoidable deaths, but the government's supporters simply don't think that's as important as supporting the government.

I am staggered at the self-degradation of these partisans.

Pot meet kettle. I assume the Italians, French, Germans, Americans (need I go on?) who died were all unavoidable deaths? Or maybe. just maybe there is a nasty virus in worldwide circulation causing epic problems to all governments. Ours has not performed well, I think most would accept that, but they are not the only ones to struggle in this pandemic. At least we have one of the most open and trustworthy reporting systems. How many Chinese died in Wuhan province? How many Spaniards have died (unclear reporting, and a suggestion that that true figure is far higher than the official one?
I get that you hate Brexit and the current government, but you are one of the most blinkered on this site. You are an intelligent man, but your own lack of self awareness is stark.

Britain has done exceptionally badly, in the bottommost tier of countries in its response to Covid-19. Only the most crazed zealots would suggest otherwise.

Sadly, many of those crazed zealots infest this site. Here's the sort of problem that they're determined to avoid discussing:

https://twitter.com/peterjukes/status/1364961983964053511?s=20

I am not claiming we have done well. Only a lunatic would. We have been hit extremely hard and I hope the resulting enquiries will help to understand why.

BUT

Our death rate to the current time is better than Belgium, Czechia and Slovenia, and slightly worse than Italy, Portugal, USA, Hungary and Spain. At the current time. Lets see where we end up.

My point is that NO-ONE is doing particularly at preventing "avoidable" deaths. You clearly feel we are by far and away the worst country, but the evidence doesn't fit that, and as I said, I have doubts over some countries reporting (Russia for instance).

Your point is bullshit. The day that Britain measures its public health performance against Brazil and Russia will be a very sad day indeed, so cavilling about statistics in countries like that is pathetic.

By any measure Britain did exceptionally badly. You have named the three countries with a worse death rate in an attempt to suggest Britain is mid table. It is fourth worst in the world (and set to overtake Slovenia imminently). It is closer to the death rate in worst-performing Belgium than to fifth-placed Italy. If Britain had done as well to date as "slightly worse" Italy, more than 14,000 people in Britain would not have died of Covid-19.

Britain's success at vaccination is fantastic. It in no way erases the appalling and avoidable errors that the government has repeatedly made in every other aspect of its handling of this disease. Anyone with a conscience should feel shame at that awful failure of our most vulnerable.

But far too many on this site want only to sweep it under the carpet.

kle4 said:

DavidL said:

AlastairMeeks said:

DavidL said:

AlastairMeeks said:

turbotubbs said:

AlastairMeeks said:

kle4 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Leon said:

DavidL said:

Leon said:

I see the Guardian says the Begum ruling is “controversial”

This is one of those special Guardian word-definitions, where “controversial” means “it dismays three people in Islington”

The view of the court about the respect to be given to the views and judgment of Ministers is something of a throw back and may cause ripples. It is not easy to reconcile that view with the unanimous view of the Court in the Prorogation case, to take an example.

The court over-reached with the prorogation case; this time they are exactly right. These difficult executive decisions must be made by people who are democratically accountable

These two cases are easily reconciled.

In both cases the court found it had the power to intervene. It took the view that it should intervene in the prorogation case because the government was taking the piss (which it was): the government's refusal to give any account under oath for its actions may well have proven fatal to its case. You seem to have forgotten that at the time of the purported prorogation Britain had a Prime Minister who had not been elected at a general election, who did not command a majority in Parliament and indeed had not won a vote in Parliament pursuing a policy that had not been put before the British public and using prorogation as a tool to impose that irreversibly.

In the present case it took the view that the government had acted within the wide latitude granted to governments when taking decisions. Which, given that the Home Secretary was exercising statutory powers given to them in an extreme case, is not all that surprising.

The main consequence of the prorogation case was political. The public decided, unlike in the USA, that they were AOK with self-coups. As a result Britain now has a government with a light attachment to democracy and an extreme aversion to any form of accountability enthusiastically supported by a self-radicalised posse who are quite willing to overlook anything it does, up to and including the avoidable deaths of tens of thousands.

Nice example of ensuring people wont pay attention to your solidly put points because you wanted to indulge in unrelated theatrical condemnation.

Now you can pretend to be affronted when people ignore your good first paras, even though that was presumably your intention and you want Brexiteers to rage at you so you can respond in turn.

Well, each of us has fun in their own way i suppose.

The last bit is the important bit. Tens of thousands of people have died avoidable deaths, but the government's supporters simply don't think that's as important as supporting the government.

I am staggered at the self-degradation of these partisans.

Pot meet kettle. I assume the Italians, French, Germans, Americans (need I go on?) who died were all unavoidable deaths? Or maybe. just maybe there is a nasty virus in worldwide circulation causing epic problems to all governments. Ours has not performed well, I think most would accept that, but they are not the only ones to struggle in this pandemic. At least we have one of the most open and trustworthy reporting systems. How many Chinese died in Wuhan province? How many Spaniards have died (unclear reporting, and a suggestion that that true figure is far higher than the official one?
I get that you hate Brexit and the current government, but you are one of the most blinkered on this site. You are an intelligent man, but your own lack of self awareness is stark.

Britain has done exceptionally badly, in the bottommost tier of countries in its response to Covid-19. Only the most crazed zealots would suggest otherwise.

Sadly, many of those crazed zealots infest this site. Here's the sort of problem that they're determined to avoid discussing:

https://twitter.com/peterjukes/status/1364961983964053511?s=20

I raised this this morning but the hypothesis of that comment that this is something that could have been avoided is at best unproven. As far as we can tell what happened was that Kent variant took a much greater hold in this country than elsewhere, it was far more infectious and possibly marginally more dangerous.

Your default assumption that this was a consequence of government incompetence or ineptitude may prove to be correct but it is an assumption. The UK has the best genomic analysis in the world. By that time (December) it had amongst the best test and trace and was one of the very highest levels of testing. And yet we were still caught with our trousers down. Incompetence? Maybe but it is possible that we did our very best and were simply unlucky.

My memory is good enough to remember early December, when cases in Britain were obviously rising and the government was resisting tightening up. I remember the Prime Minister mocking the Leader of the Opposition for suggesting the same thing.

It was obvious what was happening at the time. And untold thousands paid with their lives because the Prime Minister couldn't bear to do the unpopular but necessary thing.

I don't remember it being obvious or indeed any actual relaxation in December. There was an argument about Christmas where clearly Boris wanted a relaxation and which he eventually had to concede was inappropriate and cancelled it. What happened was that the underlying facts changed because of the Kent variant. That led to the spike in cases and then deaths in January and early February.

My recollection is closer to AlistairMeeks on this one - we had relaxed a bit from November, cases were creeping up, and all the talk was opening up for a Christmas break essentially. Eventually it was realised that was a very stupid idea, but I think it improbable the planned position had no impact. How much impact I think is hard to say. Can it really all be down to Kent?

January was bloody awful though, far worse than anticipated.

MaxPB said:

DavidL said:

AlastairMeeks said:

DavidL said:

AlastairMeeks said:

turbotubbs said:

AlastairMeeks said:

kle4 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Leon said:

DavidL said:

Leon said:

I see the Guardian says the Begum ruling is “controversial”

This is one of those special Guardian word-definitions, where “controversial” means “it dismays three people in Islington”

The view of the court about the respect to be given to the views and judgment of Ministers is something of a throw back and may cause ripples. It is not easy to reconcile that view with the unanimous view of the Court in the Prorogation case, to take an example.

The court over-reached with the prorogation case; this time they are exactly right. These difficult executive decisions must be made by people who are democratically accountable

These two cases are easily reconciled.

In both cases the court found it had the power to intervene. It took the view that it should intervene in the prorogation case because the government was taking the piss (which it was): the government's refusal to give any account under oath for its actions may well have proven fatal to its case. You seem to have forgotten that at the time of the purported prorogation Britain had a Prime Minister who had not been elected at a general election, who did not command a majority in Parliament and indeed had not won a vote in Parliament pursuing a policy that had not been put before the British public and using prorogation as a tool to impose that irreversibly.

In the present case it took the view that the government had acted within the wide latitude granted to governments when taking decisions. Which, given that the Home Secretary was exercising statutory powers given to them in an extreme case, is not all that surprising.

The main consequence of the prorogation case was political. The public decided, unlike in the USA, that they were AOK with self-coups. As a result Britain now has a government with a light attachment to democracy and an extreme aversion to any form of accountability enthusiastically supported by a self-radicalised posse who are quite willing to overlook anything it does, up to and including the avoidable deaths of tens of thousands.

Nice example of ensuring people wont pay attention to your solidly put points because you wanted to indulge in unrelated theatrical condemnation.

Now you can pretend to be affronted when people ignore your good first paras, even though that was presumably your intention and you want Brexiteers to rage at you so you can respond in turn.

Well, each of us has fun in their own way i suppose.

The last bit is the important bit. Tens of thousands of people have died avoidable deaths, but the government's supporters simply don't think that's as important as supporting the government.

I am staggered at the self-degradation of these partisans.

Pot meet kettle. I assume the Italians, French, Germans, Americans (need I go on?) who died were all unavoidable deaths? Or maybe. just maybe there is a nasty virus in worldwide circulation causing epic problems to all governments. Ours has not performed well, I think most would accept that, but they are not the only ones to struggle in this pandemic. At least we have one of the most open and trustworthy reporting systems. How many Chinese died in Wuhan province? How many Spaniards have died (unclear reporting, and a suggestion that that true figure is far higher than the official one?
I get that you hate Brexit and the current government, but you are one of the most blinkered on this site. You are an intelligent man, but your own lack of self awareness is stark.

Britain has done exceptionally badly, in the bottommost tier of countries in its response to Covid-19. Only the most crazed zealots would suggest otherwise.

Sadly, many of those crazed zealots infest this site. Here's the sort of problem that they're determined to avoid discussing:

https://twitter.com/peterjukes/status/1364961983964053511?s=20

I raised this this morning but the hypothesis of that comment that this is something that could have been avoided is at best unproven. As far as we can tell what happened was that Kent variant took a much greater hold in this country than elsewhere, it was far more infectious and possibly marginally more dangerous.

Your default assumption that this was a consequence of government incompetence or ineptitude may prove to be correct but it is an assumption. The UK has the best genomic analysis in the world. By that time (December) it had amongst the best test and trace and was one of the very highest levels of testing. And yet we were still caught with our trousers down. Incompetence? Maybe but it is possible that we did our very best and were simply unlucky.

My memory is good enough to remember early December, when cases in Britain were obviously rising and the government was resisting tightening up. I remember the Prime Minister mocking the Leader of the Opposition for suggesting the same thing.

It was obvious what was happening at the time. And untold thousands paid with their lives because the Prime Minister couldn't bear to do the unpopular but necessary thing.

I don't remember it being obvious or indeed any actual relaxation in December. There was an argument about Christmas where clearly Boris wanted a relaxation and which he eventually had to concede was inappropriate and cancelled it. What happened was that the underlying facts changed because of the Kent variant. That led to the spike in cases and then deaths in January and early February.

In England everywhere except London, SE and East had condoned household mixing over Xmas and loads of places saw an explosion of cases just afterwards.

Really the safety first approach made sense because of the vaccine programme. I remember saying as such many, many times in November when Pfizer put their vaccine forwards for approval. Extending the existing lockdown suddenly made sense because we had been given the ability to vaccinate our way out of the cycle of lockdown and unlockdown. The one day of school was the most unforgivable error. Millions of kids went in, potentially got infected and then took those infections home with them. What a massive error.

AlastairMeeks said:

DavidL said:

AlastairMeeks said:

turbotubbs said:

AlastairMeeks said:

kle4 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Leon said:

DavidL said:

Leon said:

I see the Guardian says the Begum ruling is “controversial”

This is one of those special Guardian word-definitions, where “controversial” means “it dismays three people in Islington”

The view of the court about the respect to be given to the views and judgment of Ministers is something of a throw back and may cause ripples. It is not easy to reconcile that view with the unanimous view of the Court in the Prorogation case, to take an example.

The court over-reached with the prorogation case; this time they are exactly right. These difficult executive decisions must be made by people who are democratically accountable

These two cases are easily reconciled.

In both cases the court found it had the power to intervene. It took the view that it should intervene in the prorogation case because the government was taking the piss (which it was): the government's refusal to give any account under oath for its actions may well have proven fatal to its case. You seem to have forgotten that at the time of the purported prorogation Britain had a Prime Minister who had not been elected at a general election, who did not command a majority in Parliament and indeed had not won a vote in Parliament pursuing a policy that had not been put before the British public and using prorogation as a tool to impose that irreversibly.

In the present case it took the view that the government had acted within the wide latitude granted to governments when taking decisions. Which, given that the Home Secretary was exercising statutory powers given to them in an extreme case, is not all that surprising.

The main consequence of the prorogation case was political. The public decided, unlike in the USA, that they were AOK with self-coups. As a result Britain now has a government with a light attachment to democracy and an extreme aversion to any form of accountability enthusiastically supported by a self-radicalised posse who are quite willing to overlook anything it does, up to and including the avoidable deaths of tens of thousands.

Nice example of ensuring people wont pay attention to your solidly put points because you wanted to indulge in unrelated theatrical condemnation.

Now you can pretend to be affronted when people ignore your good first paras, even though that was presumably your intention and you want Brexiteers to rage at you so you can respond in turn.

Well, each of us has fun in their own way i suppose.

The last bit is the important bit. Tens of thousands of people have died avoidable deaths, but the government's supporters simply don't think that's as important as supporting the government.

I am staggered at the self-degradation of these partisans.

Pot meet kettle. I assume the Italians, French, Germans, Americans (need I go on?) who died were all unavoidable deaths? Or maybe. just maybe there is a nasty virus in worldwide circulation causing epic problems to all governments. Ours has not performed well, I think most would accept that, but they are not the only ones to struggle in this pandemic. At least we have one of the most open and trustworthy reporting systems. How many Chinese died in Wuhan province? How many Spaniards have died (unclear reporting, and a suggestion that that true figure is far higher than the official one?
I get that you hate Brexit and the current government, but you are one of the most blinkered on this site. You are an intelligent man, but your own lack of self awareness is stark.

Britain has done exceptionally badly, in the bottommost tier of countries in its response to Covid-19. Only the most crazed zealots would suggest otherwise.

Sadly, many of those crazed zealots infest this site. Here's the sort of problem that they're determined to avoid discussing:

https://twitter.com/peterjukes/status/1364961983964053511?s=20

I raised this this morning but the hypothesis of that comment that this is something that could have been avoided is at best unproven. As far as we can tell what happened was that Kent variant took a much greater hold in this country than elsewhere, it was far more infectious and possibly marginally more dangerous.

Your default assumption that this was a consequence of government incompetence or ineptitude may prove to be correct but it is an assumption. The UK has the best genomic analysis in the world. By that time (December) it had amongst the best test and trace and was one of the very highest levels of testing. And yet we were still caught with our trousers down. Incompetence? Maybe but it is possible that we did our very best and were simply unlucky.

My memory is good enough to remember early December, when cases in Britain were obviously rising and the government was resisting tightening up. I remember the Prime Minister mocking the Leader of the Opposition for suggesting the same thing.

It was obvious what was happening at the time. And untold thousands paid with their lives because the Prime Minister couldn't bear to do the unpopular but necessary thing.

franklyn said:

Watching Salmond's testimony it is clear that if there was independence, Scotland would be a banana republic; in fact to call it a banana republic would be a grave insult to bananas.

AlastairMeeks said:

ozymandias said:

AlastairMeeks said:

DavidL said:

AlastairMeeks said:

turbotubbs said:

AlastairMeeks said:

kle4 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Leon said:

DavidL said:

Leon said:

I see the Guardian says the Begum ruling is “controversial”

This is one of those special Guardian word-definitions, where “controversial” means “it dismays three people in Islington”

The view of the court about the respect to be given to the views and judgment of Ministers is something of a throw back and may cause ripples. It is not easy to reconcile that view with the unanimous view of the Court in the Prorogation case, to take an example.

The court over-reached with the prorogation case; this time they are exactly right. These difficult executive decisions must be made by people who are democratically accountable

These two cases are easily reconciled.

In both cases the court found it had the power to intervene. It took the view that it should intervene in the prorogation case because the government was taking the piss (which it was): the government's refusal to give any account under oath for its actions may well have proven fatal to its case. You seem to have forgotten that at the time of the purported prorogation Britain had a Prime Minister who had not been elected at a general election, who did not command a majority in Parliament and indeed had not won a vote in Parliament pursuing a policy that had not been put before the British public and using prorogation as a tool to impose that irreversibly.

In the present case it took the view that the government had acted within the wide latitude granted to governments when taking decisions. Which, given that the Home Secretary was exercising statutory powers given to them in an extreme case, is not all that surprising.

The main consequence of the prorogation case was political. The public decided, unlike in the USA, that they were AOK with self-coups. As a result Britain now has a government with a light attachment to democracy and an extreme aversion to any form of accountability enthusiastically supported by a self-radicalised posse who are quite willing to overlook anything it does, up to and including the avoidable deaths of tens of thousands.

Nice example of ensuring people wont pay attention to your solidly put points because you wanted to indulge in unrelated theatrical condemnation.

Now you can pretend to be affronted when people ignore your good first paras, even though that was presumably your intention and you want Brexiteers to rage at you so you can respond in turn.

Well, each of us has fun in their own way i suppose.

The last bit is the important bit. Tens of thousands of people have died avoidable deaths, but the government's supporters simply don't think that's as important as supporting the government.

I am staggered at the self-degradation of these partisans.

Pot meet kettle. I assume the Italians, French, Germans, Americans (need I go on?) who died were all unavoidable deaths? Or maybe. just maybe there is a nasty virus in worldwide circulation causing epic problems to all governments. Ours has not performed well, I think most would accept that, but they are not the only ones to struggle in this pandemic. At least we have one of the most open and trustworthy reporting systems. How many Chinese died in Wuhan province? How many Spaniards have died (unclear reporting, and a suggestion that that true figure is far higher than the official one?
I get that you hate Brexit and the current government, but you are one of the most blinkered on this site. You are an intelligent man, but your own lack of self awareness is stark.

Britain has done exceptionally badly, in the bottommost tier of countries in its response to Covid-19. Only the most crazed zealots would suggest otherwise.

Sadly, many of those crazed zealots infest this site. Here's the sort of problem that they're determined to avoid discussing:

https://twitter.com/peterjukes/status/1364961983964053511?s=20

I raised this this morning but the hypothesis of that comment that this is something that could have been avoided is at best unproven. As far as we can tell what happened was that Kent variant took a much greater hold in this country than elsewhere, it was far more infectious and possibly marginally more dangerous.

Your default assumption that this was a consequence of government incompetence or ineptitude may prove to be correct but it is an assumption. The UK has the best genomic analysis in the world. By that time (December) it had amongst the best test and trace and was one of the very highest levels of testing. And yet we were still caught with our trousers down. Incompetence? Maybe but it is possible that we did our very best and were simply unlucky.

My memory is good enough to remember early December, when cases in Britain were obviously rising and the government was resisting tightening up. I remember the Prime Minister mocking the Leader of the Opposition for suggesting the same thing.

It was obvious what was happening at the time. And untold thousands paid with their lives because the Prime Minister couldn't bear to do the unpopular but necessary thing.

I'm sure you're diligently noting down in your ledger the untold thousands of EU citizens who will perish completely unnecessarily due to the EU, and various Member State governments, putting political ideology and dogma ahead of the lives of their citizens.

Your position the other night was that this was a pandemic and as such a natural phenomenon for which no government could be blamed for anything at all. Have you yet moved on from that ridiculous position?

ozymandias said:

AlastairMeeks said:

ozymandias said:

AlastairMeeks said:

DavidL said:

AlastairMeeks said:

turbotubbs said:

AlastairMeeks said:

kle4 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Leon said:

DavidL said:

Leon said:

I see the Guardian says the Begum ruling is “controversial”

This is one of those special Guardian word-definitions, where “controversial” means “it dismays three people in Islington”

The view of the court about the respect to be given to the views and judgment of Ministers is something of a throw back and may cause ripples. It is not easy to reconcile that view with the unanimous view of the Court in the Prorogation case, to take an example.

The court over-reached with the prorogation case; this time they are exactly right. These difficult executive decisions must be made by people who are democratically accountable

These two cases are easily reconciled.

In both cases the court found it had the power to intervene. It took the view that it should intervene in the prorogation case because the government was taking the piss (which it was): the government's refusal to give any account under oath for its actions may well have proven fatal to its case. You seem to have forgotten that at the time of the purported prorogation Britain had a Prime Minister who had not been elected at a general election, who did not command a majority in Parliament and indeed had not won a vote in Parliament pursuing a policy that had not been put before the British public and using prorogation as a tool to impose that irreversibly.

In the present case it took the view that the government had acted within the wide latitude granted to governments when taking decisions. Which, given that the Home Secretary was exercising statutory powers given to them in an extreme case, is not all that surprising.

The main consequence of the prorogation case was political. The public decided, unlike in the USA, that they were AOK with self-coups. As a result Britain now has a government with a light attachment to democracy and an extreme aversion to any form of accountability enthusiastically supported by a self-radicalised posse who are quite willing to overlook anything it does, up to and including the avoidable deaths of tens of thousands.

Nice example of ensuring people wont pay attention to your solidly put points because you wanted to indulge in unrelated theatrical condemnation.

Now you can pretend to be affronted when people ignore your good first paras, even though that was presumably your intention and you want Brexiteers to rage at you so you can respond in turn.

Well, each of us has fun in their own way i suppose.

The last bit is the important bit. Tens of thousands of people have died avoidable deaths, but the government's supporters simply don't think that's as important as supporting the government.

I am staggered at the self-degradation of these partisans.

Pot meet kettle. I assume the Italians, French, Germans, Americans (need I go on?) who died were all unavoidable deaths? Or maybe. just maybe there is a nasty virus in worldwide circulation causing epic problems to all governments. Ours has not performed well, I think most would accept that, but they are not the only ones to struggle in this pandemic. At least we have one of the most open and trustworthy reporting systems. How many Chinese died in Wuhan province? How many Spaniards have died (unclear reporting, and a suggestion that that true figure is far higher than the official one?
I get that you hate Brexit and the current government, but you are one of the most blinkered on this site. You are an intelligent man, but your own lack of self awareness is stark.

Britain has done exceptionally badly, in the bottommost tier of countries in its response to Covid-19. Only the most crazed zealots would suggest otherwise.

Sadly, many of those crazed zealots infest this site. Here's the sort of problem that they're determined to avoid discussing:

https://twitter.com/peterjukes/status/1364961983964053511?s=20

I raised this this morning but the hypothesis of that comment that this is something that could have been avoided is at best unproven. As far as we can tell what happened was that Kent variant took a much greater hold in this country than elsewhere, it was far more infectious and possibly marginally more dangerous.

Your default assumption that this was a consequence of government incompetence or ineptitude may prove to be correct but it is an assumption. The UK has the best genomic analysis in the world. By that time (December) it had amongst the best test and trace and was one of the very highest levels of testing. And yet we were still caught with our trousers down. Incompetence? Maybe but it is possible that we did our very best and were simply unlucky.

My memory is good enough to remember early December, when cases in Britain were obviously rising and the government was resisting tightening up. I remember the Prime Minister mocking the Leader of the Opposition for suggesting the same thing.

It was obvious what was happening at the time. And untold thousands paid with their lives because the Prime Minister couldn't bear to do the unpopular but necessary thing.

I'm sure you're diligently noting down in your ledger the untold thousands of EU citizens who will perish completely unnecessarily due to the EU, and various Member State governments, putting political ideology and dogma ahead of the lives of their citizens.

Your position the other night was that this was a pandemic and as such a natural phenomenon for which no government could be blamed for anything at all. Have you yet moved on from that ridiculous position?

Not at all. I'm just naively assuming you must be doing as I mentioned as a logical extension of your criticisms of the UK government.

If you're not then it doesn't bother me, but it would be interesting to know. Unless of course there's axes to be ground.

I don't blame any government for anything as it happens. No government is deliberately seeking to kill their citizens. All are doing what they consider to be the best at the time they make any decision, in rapidly changing situations, with new and constantly evolving scientific evidence or theories.

But if there's an axe to be ground then so be it. Fill your boots. It won't assuage your evident hate of the UK government though. Use your vote instead. If enough people agree with you then democracy will have its say.

I have a feeling though that it won't be your current angst that'll be the undoing of Johnson.

FrancisUrquhart said:

The North West is a stubborn problem area.