LOST IN THE WOODS: Labour’s Challenge for the 2020s – politicalbetting.com

MarqueeMark said:

Gallowgate said:

MarqueeMark said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Cheers Rochdale, this is the sort of thing Labour should be looking at,

https://twitter.com/rcolvile/status/1367425959327133701

It makes me realise how fortunate I have been.

Having said that

2008/09 minimum wage £5.73

£5.73 in 2020 money is £7.82

2020/21 minimum wage is £8.72

That's an 11.5% increase in real terms.

The Coalition and Conservative Govts. since 2010 deserve considerable plaudits for pushing this up. They make Labour look very cheap. Almost Victorian mill-owner in comparison....

Of course Labour were the ones who implemented the Minimum Wage to begin with, and to much Conservative opposition I believe.

Only of interest to historians. The Conservatives have now run with making it work - and found the money to fund it properly.

Well by that logic your weird comparison with "Victorian mill-owners" is also only of interest to historians.

Come on man.

I must confess I wouldn't have expected Mario Draghi, of all the EU leaders, to be the one going mediaeval on vaccine manufacturers: During a phone call with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen on Wednesday, Mr Draghi said it was necessary to "suffocate" big pharmaceutical companies to force them to respect the agreed delivery terms..

The number of senior politicians who seem to have lost their minds recently beggars belief. Are they trying to drive pharmaceutical companies out of the EU?

In personal vaccine news, I'm still waiting for my Group 6 appointment.

https://twitter.com/ATabarrok/status/1367514924981891076?s=20

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2021/03/06/new-data-show-that-leading-covid-19-vaccines-have-similarly-high-efficacy

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/ATabarrok/status/1367514924981891076?s=20

Paging Macron.

On topic, this article is bang on in my opinion, and the list of suggestions is absolutely right for an immediate battle plan. Starmer may even know most or all of this - Nandy was certainly pushing a lot of these ideas. However, the issue is there is almost complete disconnect between a large chunk of the activist base, who want exactly the opposite of all these things, and the voters they need. So until they manage to square that circle, the party has a problem.

Richard_Nabavi said:

I must confess I wouldn't have expected it Mario Draghi, of all the EU leaders, to be the one going mediaeval on vaccine manufacturers: During a phone call with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen on Wednesday, Mr Draghi said it was necessary to "suffocate" big pharmaceutical companies to force them to respect the agreed delivery terms..

The number of senior politicians who seem to have lost their minds recently beggars belief. Are they trying to drive pharmaceutical companies out of the EU?

It does seem that way. We've got a conveniently timed 130% superdeduction on capital investment as well. Kwasi, Liz and Rishi need to get on the phone to every major pharma company today.

kinabalu said:

@RochdalePioneers

Can what you suggest here - on tone and empathy - be combined with radical re-distributive policies, do you think?

No, and I don;t think they should be. "Radical re-distributive policies" is translated by Labour activists as smash capitalism, and by Labour-skeptics as a threat to their own taxes / jobs.

I don't think there is anything fundamentally broken in the economy that can't be fixed (the constitutional settlement is another thing entirely...). We have seen the Chancellor turbocharge one change I have called for - investment. The other major change is to pivot away from "benefits" and back to a social security safety net.

More investment by more businesses equals more jobs and more consumption. Couple that with an end to the notion that any handout to the needy is a personal affront to the taxpayer and we can build something sustainable.

1. The EU tries to get AZN vaccines that are contractually due to other nations.
   
2. They fail.
   
3. They try to slander AZN to say it doesn't work so they don't want it anyway.
   
4. It works.
   
5. Evidence becomes unsurmountable that it works.
   
6. The EU acknowledges that it works.
   
7. The EU tries to get AZN vaccines that are contractually due to other nations.
   

Have I got the timeline right?

MaxPB said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

I must confess I wouldn't have expected it Mario Draghi, of all the EU leaders, to be the one going mediaeval on vaccine manufacturers: During a phone call with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen on Wednesday, Mr Draghi said it was necessary to "suffocate" big pharmaceutical companies to force them to respect the agreed delivery terms..

The number of senior politicians who seem to have lost their minds recently beggars belief. Are they trying to drive pharmaceutical companies out of the EU?

It does seem that way. We've got a conveniently timed 130% superdeduction on capital investment as well. Kwasi, Liz and Rishi need to get on the phone to every major pharma company today.

Early days but potentially that 130% was a masterstroke.

TimT said:

GIN1138 said:

Nigelb said:

I posted this at the end of the last thread.
It's not of any immediate alarm, but it's another indication of why we need to get the pandemic ended through vaccination as quickly as possible.

https://twitter.com/Bergthalerlab/status/1367508214233841669

I wonder if we'll all have to have regular booster jabs every 12 months or so to take account of the variants. A little bit like how they tweak to the Flu jab every year?

NigelB: I just saw another paper, which you may have posted, where some of the co-authors are from Novavax, which implied the opposite - that the T-cell response was very hardy to viral mutation as they recognize a larger number of epitopes than do antibodies.

Do you think the results of this study might, to some extent, be an artifact of doing a cell-free study, and looking at epitopes individually (if that is what they did), rather than at the total in vivo T-cell response?

Absolutely - it's less likely to happen or be of significance than the antibody evasion demonstrated.
I think the authors make the same point.
It's only demonstrating that T-cell evasion can happen, not that it will.

...The majority of nonsynonymous mutations found in the validated CTL escapes had not reached fixation, i.e., were present at frequencies between 0.02 and 0.42 (Fig. 1B). This could be explained by the shorter duration of infection with SARS-CoV-2 compared to HIV or HCV. It may also reflect on the degree to which HLA polymorphism affects viral spreading within human populations. The impact of single anchor residue substitutions on the response of CD4+ T cells is still unclear.

Our findings do not rule out that substitutions of residues facing the cognate T cell receptor may give rise to the emergence of CTL neoepitopes. Of note, we could show for the YLQ epitope that T cell clones that expanded in vitro in the presence of mutant peptides were identical to those expanded in response to the wild type peptide, suggesting a similar if not identical structural basis underlying TCR-epitope engagement.

This study does not allow direct conclusions to be drawn concerning potential selection pressures which shape the mutational landscape of CD8+ T cell epitopes. This would invariably involve accounting for the HLA genotype of all individuals from whom SARS-CoV-2 genomes were sequenced. Moreover, how CTL escape mutations are maintained during transmission between individuals with differing HLA subtypes and how viruses carrying epitope mutations affect disease severity requires further investigation....

Northern_Al said:

kinabalu said:

Northern_Al said:

MarqueeMark said:

Labour's problems are amply demonstrated by its leader, a north London lawyer, getting it oh so wrong about levelling up yesterday. Put Darlington solidly in the blue column next time - and probably a raft of Red Wall seats too, if the Keir sneer is all they are going to get.

Starmer didn't sneer about Darlington at all. The full quote was on the last thread - did you read it? He was making a valid point that any government that was deadly serious about levelling up would be doing much more radical reform than was contained in yesterday's budget. I don't have a problem with what Sunak announced on Darlington and other measures (and nor does Starmer), and it's a start, but the structural reforms needed to really equalise power, wealth and influence across the regions will take a lot more genuinely redistributive measures than the Tories would countenance, I suspect. At the moment, the shifting of resources to the north seems to be mainly focused on securing marginal seats. Mind you, I'm not sure that the current Labour Party would countenance the sort of changes needed to move power away from London either.

Yes. Not to be po-faced but the standard of political debate is really heading south.

Yes, I've been posting on here for a year now. (Before that I lurked, but was too busy to post because I had to earn a living - god knows how some people on here who still work find the time to post so much.) There remain many really interesting and thoughtful posters who contribute to debate, from all sides, and make me think. However, I'm pretty confident that there's been a notable increase over the last year in partisan point-scoring focusing on absolute trivia; it sort of mirrors the approach of a government in permanent campaigning, point-scoring mode, I guess. Far be it for me to suggest which side of the political spectrum most of the trivia comes from. And I'm not talking about the humorous posts, which are splendid - just the sort of fake news, attack the 'woke', gotcha posts.

Only a year? I've done a 3 stretch. Yes, there is perhaps a sense of PB.com BTL trending with the climate. There's a whiff of one party rule and triumphalism after the Johnson landslide and the realization that almost regardless of events, he and they can bank on 40% core support (and thus be hot favourites under FPTP) because they own the dominant English political identity of Leave. "Bliss it was in that dawn to be alive, but to be a Tory Leaver was very heaven". There's a lot of this sentiment and it fuels bumption. Ah well. Tides turn. Could do with that "onlylivingboy" poster back. Seem to have lost our midfield playmaker there.

Gardenwalker said:

algarkirk said:

Gardenwalker said:

Thank you Rochdale Pioneers for this piece.

In my view the clue is in the name: Labour.

It’s about jobs, meaningful jobs.
And support from state services that allow all to live in dignity.

Rishi’s budget actually continues the austerity of the 2010s, and doesn’t really do anything for jobs with the exception of the corporate investment subsidy.

Keir does get this I think, if my scanning of his budget response is fair - but he hasn’t figured out how to communicate that properly to the public in a compelling way.

Austerity is not quite the word for a Conservative government whose expenditure is £850 bn, a huge proportion of which is borrowed, and vast sums of which are redistributed to less well off people.

Austerity to public services.
Austerity in wage growth.

Private sector wages won't grow as long as employers have an effectively infinite labour pool to fish in. I am a senior software engineer and can tell you when you go job hunting the wages companies offer now are on par with the wages they offered in 2002 outside of a couple of very niche specialities.

It used to be if your company decided against payrises then you could get one by changing job. No longer true anymore at least in my role. Think on that....I currently earn the same amount as I did in 2002. So do most of my colleagues. Yet we are constantly being told there is a shortage of it workers.

The only people I know who work in the private sector that have seen payrises are all minimum wage workers due to minimum wage being uprated.

Brexit for many was a chance to cut down the size of the labour pool. It was remainer Rose after all that said we should remain in the eu else wages might rise

Good sharp piece.

Appreciated.

MaxPB said:

Interesting article btw, @RochdalePioneers, lots to think about for Labour. They do seem a bit lost at sea because the Tories have stolen all of their policies but aren't losing any voters on their right wing due to lack of competition.

At this point in time I could seriously see the Tories storming to another landslide victory with 100+ seat majority.

2024 (well actually 2023) vote Tory for a chance that a Government department could be moved to your area.

Gardenwalker said:

MarqueeMark said:

Gallowgate said:

MarqueeMark said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Cheers Rochdale, this is the sort of thing Labour should be looking at,

https://twitter.com/rcolvile/status/1367425959327133701

It makes me realise how fortunate I have been.

Having said that

2008/09 minimum wage £5.73

£5.73 in 2020 money is £7.82

2020/21 minimum wage is £8.72

That's an 11.5% increase in real terms.

The Coalition and Conservative Govts. since 2010 deserve considerable plaudits for pushing this up. They make Labour look very cheap. Almost Victorian mill-owner in comparison....

Of course Labour were the ones who implemented the Minimum Wage to begin with, and to much Conservative opposition I believe.

Only of interest to historians. The Conservatives have now run with making it work - and found the money to fund it properly.

Government doesn’t fund the Minimum Wage, except as an employer.

I can't find the stats, but I expect there aren't that many public sector Minimum Wage jobs, so admittedly, it doesn't cost much to lead by example. But the Govt. insisting the private sector pays it rather suggests the Conservatives aren't exactly in the pockets of big business any longer...

https://twitter.com/nickeardleybbc/status/1367525076707508224

RochdalePioneers said:

Endillion said:

On topic, this article is bang on in my opinion, and the list of suggestions is absolutely right for an immediate battle plan. Starmer may even know most or all of this - Nandy was certainly pushing a lot of these ideas. However, the issue is there is almost complete disconnect between a large chunk of the activist base, who want exactly the opposite of all these things, and the voters they need. So until they manage to square that circle, the party has a problem.

Its a catastrophic development for the party. There has always been a division between "proper" working class and the university class, but now there seems to be a zealous zeal from the middle class university educated membership who see any hint of bread and butter issues that concern working people as a betrayal.

What makes it worse is that the rapid onset of this insanity is a direct bounce away from Blair and Blairism. It doesn't matter that Tough on Crime, Tough on the Causes of Crime was a perfect policy - cut to the issue, presented simply, liked and understood by voters. If Blair did it then it must be wrong cos he's a Tory war criminal.

I think it's actually worse then you are making out.

Look at Teesside and the other areas where Labour were in power for 40+ years prior to 2015/20 say.

And then think what argument you could use if you were the Labour candidate against say Ben Houchen who has delivered everything he's promised (and more).

Talking local won't work in those areas as talking local may (will) remind people that Labour did nowt for years (especially with austerity post 2010) and things only improved after Labour was removed from power.

And yes Austerity was a Tory (Osbourne) policy but the Labour party were the people who cut everything locally.

RochdalePioneers said:

Endillion said:

On topic, this article is bang on in my opinion, and the list of suggestions is absolutely right for an immediate battle plan. Starmer may even know most or all of this - Nandy was certainly pushing a lot of these ideas. However, the issue is there is almost complete disconnect between a large chunk of the activist base, who want exactly the opposite of all these things, and the voters they need. So until they manage to square that circle, the party has a problem.

Its a catastrophic development for the party. There has always been a division between "proper" working class and the university class, but now there seems to be a zealous zeal from the middle class university educated membership who see any hint of bread and butter issues that concern working people as a betrayal.

What makes it worse is that the rapid onset of this insanity is a direct bounce away from Blair and Blairism. It doesn't matter that Tough on Crime, Tough on the Causes of Crime was a perfect policy - cut to the issue, presented simply, liked and understood by voters. If Blair did it then it must be wrong cos he's a Tory war criminal.

It'll be interesting to see what you make of Slab - there is more scope in Scotland for the woke MC types to join credible alternative parties (ie ones which actually have [edit: significant] parliamentary representation). As the gender wars in the SNP and the Scottish Greens may indicate.

The impression I got of SLAB poilling a few years ago was that it was reliant on the elderly working class. Very skewed distribution, like the Tories, but I am not sure if that is still true.

Flatlander said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MaxPB said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

I must confess I wouldn't have expected it Mario Draghi, of all the EU leaders, to be the one going mediaeval on vaccine manufacturers: During a phone call with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen on Wednesday, Mr Draghi said it was necessary to "suffocate" big pharmaceutical companies to force them to respect the agreed delivery terms..

The number of senior politicians who seem to have lost their minds recently beggars belief. Are they trying to drive pharmaceutical companies out of the EU?

It does seem that way. We've got a conveniently timed 130% superdeduction on capital investment as well. Kwasi, Liz and Rishi need to get on the phone to every major pharma company today.

Early days but potentially that 130% was a masterstroke.

1.3 x 19% is just under 25%

Is the super-deduction just an attempt to avoid investment being delayed until the tax rise kicks in, when there will be a higher rate to offset? Albeit that there isn't currently a blanket 100% deduction at present.

No, it means that a company that invests £10m will get £13m off their tax bill. It's a 30% capital investment credit at the moment it's 25% I think. This is a step change for capital investment in the UK and it needs to be made permanent.

Malmesbury said:

Andy_JS said:

"COVID-19: Italy and EU block Oxford vaccine shipment to Australia"

https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-italy-and-eu-block-oxford-vaccine-shipment-to-australia-12235848

Can't help feeling that the rumoured EU er.... comment to Australia on the UK application for CPTPP is going to have the opposite effect intended....

Which comment was this? I must have missed it.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1367527504643293189

Mental. I'm honestly shocked that Labour are getting no look in despite the Tories delivering 125k excess deaths in a year and putting taxes up quite significantly for individuals.

Starmer isn't the charmer they thought he might be. He is as dull as ditchwater. Labour need Rumpole.

Andy_JS said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/ArchRose90/status/1367485395651489801?s=20

Actually, I like to think if we were still in the EU we would indeed have persuaded them to behave in a more reasonable way, so I suppose I agree with Layla Moran on this.

But the argument makes no sense when it was being argued, and I accept I was one of them, that the UK going it alone would end up with a worse outcome than the EU on this issue.

She was surely one of the people outraged about our lack of involvement in the EU scheme on the basis we would face a worse outcome, therefore if she did argue that, her reasoning was that the UK was worse at such negotiations.

Accordingly, how can it be subsequently argued to also believe we would have improved their response?

How do you give a first dose to more than 100% of a cohort ?

https://twitter.com/HugoGye/status/1367487132416290819

eek said:

MaxPB said:

Interesting article btw, @RochdalePioneers, lots to think about for Labour. They do seem a bit lost at sea because the Tories have stolen all of their policies but aren't losing any voters on their right wing due to lack of competition.

At this point in time I could seriously see the Tories storming to another landslide victory with 100+ seat majority.

2024 (well actually 2023) vote Tory for a chance that a Government department could be moved to your area.

There goes the NIMBY vote.

EPG said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1367527504643293189

It is interesting that the Greens are now persistently in third place and around 7 per cent. Anecdotally, the leading edge of anti-Starmer dissidents have chosen the Greens as the next vehicle. If the flags and fudge continue, this could go a little higher - it's not like young people have a lot to lose by shifting from one small opposition party to another.

Always nice to see Tory leads more than twice as big as Lib Dem shares.

Excellent header from @RochdalePioneers, with very little for me to disagree with. The harsh truth facing Labour is that for the party to win, its activists, intellectuals, and most passionate supporters have to lose.

Richard_Nabavi said:

MaxPB said:

No, it means that a company that invests £10m will get £13m off their tax bill. It's a 30% capital investment credit at the moment it's 25% I think. This is a step change for capital investment in the UK and it needs to be made permanent.

No, they'll get £13m off their taxable profits, not their tax bill. It's not THAT generous!

The way he announced it yesterday implied the former but maybe it was tricky wording and the actual money set aside per year - £13bn - also seems to imply that it's a gigantic policy.

algarkirk said:

kinabalu said:

YBarddCwsc said:

Stocky said:

turbotubbs said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

TOPPING said:

That's strange. PB Brains Trust I get it. But First Minister vs some random doctor?

Who do you think has the better access to the bigger picture and advice?

PB Brains Trust, obv.

While this is clearly a joke, in fact there has been some very sound thinking and advice on this very forum. There are enough experts from a wide variety of disciplines to contribute. A bit like how parliament ought to be, but sadly isn't.
If pb was in charge of the pandemic response, it would have been 'different', but also interesting...

How `bout this for a PB.com cabinet:

Prime Minister: Stodge
Chancellor of the Exchequer: Contrarian
Foreign Secretary: DavidL
Home Secretary: Black Rook
Justice: Kinabalu
Health: Gallowgate
Work and pensions: Nabavi
Education: Ydoethur
Department for International Trade: PT
Defence: HYUFD
Secretary of State for Scotland: MalcyG
Chief Whip: Topping

This a cabinet from the 1950s.

Cyclefree is making the tea, right ?

Don't worry. I've been sacked after a rumpus at the first meeting and she is now at Justice.

Mr Meeks for Brexit Secretary?

No such position.

MaxPB said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1367527504643293189

Mental. I'm honestly shocked that Labour are getting no look in despite the Tories delivering 125k excess deaths in a year and putting taxes up quite significantly for individuals.

The Tories did not deliver 125k excess deaths.

CarlottaVance said:

Pfizer’s jab is pricey and must be stored in freezers. In contrast, AstraZeneca’s is cheap and needs only normal refrigeration. If the AstraZeneca vaccine also matches Pfizer’s efficacy, which now appears likely, it could play a leading role in ending the pandemic—so long as people do not reject it based on ill-founded swipes from the likes of Mr Macron.

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2021/03/06/new-data-show-that-leading-covid-19-vaccines-have-similarly-high-efficacy

pfizer's jab may not actually require those expensive freezers - that's one of the things they are currently trialing now they have more time.

williamglenn said:

kle4 said:

Andy_JS said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/ArchRose90/status/1367485395651489801?s=20

Actually, I like to think if we were still in the EU we would indeed have persuaded them to behave in a more reasonable way, so I suppose I agree with Layla Moran on this.

But the argument makes no sense when it was being argued, and I accept I was one of them, that the UK going it alone would end up with a worse outcome than the EU on this issue.

She was surely one of the people outraged about our lack of involvement in the EU scheme on the basis we would face a worse outcome, therefore if she did argue that, her reasoning was that the UK was worse at such negotiations.

Accordingly, how can it be subsequently argued to also believe we would have improved their response?

This is the argument she was making at the time.
https://twitter.com/LaylaMoran/status/1279079605916311553

As expected - thus to argue about our expectise helping is deeply insincere, when she argued we needed to be in to save us from our own incompetence (granted we have plenty).

Now, maybe she has changed her mind on that given how things have turned out. But given how confident she was that they would correct things for us, how can she believe the reverse would happened?

She doesn't.

MarqueeMark said:

Gardenwalker said:

MarqueeMark said:

Gallowgate said:

MarqueeMark said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Cheers Rochdale, this is the sort of thing Labour should be looking at,

https://twitter.com/rcolvile/status/1367425959327133701

It makes me realise how fortunate I have been.

Having said that

2008/09 minimum wage £5.73

£5.73 in 2020 money is £7.82

2020/21 minimum wage is £8.72

That's an 11.5% increase in real terms.

The Coalition and Conservative Govts. since 2010 deserve considerable plaudits for pushing this up. They make Labour look very cheap. Almost Victorian mill-owner in comparison....

Of course Labour were the ones who implemented the Minimum Wage to begin with, and to much Conservative opposition I believe.

Only of interest to historians. The Conservatives have now run with making it work - and found the money to fund it properly.

Government doesn’t fund the Minimum Wage, except as an employer.

I can't find the stats, but I expect there aren't that many public sector Minimum Wage jobs, so admittedly, it doesn't cost much to lead by example. But the Govt. insisting the private sector pays it rather suggests the Conservatives aren't exactly in the pockets of big business any longer...

IIRC there are quite a lot of cleaning/security guard/delivery jobs that are paid directly or indirectly (via a contractor) by the government.

williamglenn said:

kle4 said:

Andy_JS said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/ArchRose90/status/1367485395651489801?s=20

Actually, I like to think if we were still in the EU we would indeed have persuaded them to behave in a more reasonable way, so I suppose I agree with Layla Moran on this.

But the argument makes no sense when it was being argued, and I accept I was one of them, that the UK going it alone would end up with a worse outcome than the EU on this issue.

She was surely one of the people outraged about our lack of involvement in the EU scheme on the basis we would face a worse outcome, therefore if she did argue that, her reasoning was that the UK was worse at such negotiations.

Accordingly, how can it be subsequently argued to also believe we would have improved their response?

This is the argument she was making at the time.
https://twitter.com/LaylaMoran/status/1279079605916311553

Once again - most thing are a compromise between quality, price and delivery speed.

We chose quality and delivery speed - the EU didn't.

Which is why we are likely to fine come June / July time and the EU will have problems until at least the Autumn.

Nigelb said:

How do you give a first dose to more than 100% of a cohort ?

https://twitter.com/HugoGye/status/1367487132416290819

There are more in the cohort than anticipated because the records are out of date - they might even be based on the census.

MarqueeMark said:

Gardenwalker said:

MarqueeMark said:

Gallowgate said:

MarqueeMark said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Cheers Rochdale, this is the sort of thing Labour should be looking at,

https://twitter.com/rcolvile/status/1367425959327133701

It makes me realise how fortunate I have been.

Having said that

2008/09 minimum wage £5.73

£5.73 in 2020 money is £7.82

2020/21 minimum wage is £8.72

That's an 11.5% increase in real terms.

The Coalition and Conservative Govts. since 2010 deserve considerable plaudits for pushing this up. They make Labour look very cheap. Almost Victorian mill-owner in comparison....

Of course Labour were the ones who implemented the Minimum Wage to begin with, and to much Conservative opposition I believe.

Only of interest to historians. The Conservatives have now run with making it work - and found the money to fund it properly.

Government doesn’t fund the Minimum Wage, except as an employer.

I can't find the stats, but I expect there aren't that many public sector Minimum Wage jobs, so admittedly, it doesn't cost much to lead by example. But the Govt. insisting the private sector pays it rather suggests the Conservatives aren't exactly in the pockets of big business any longer...

Most minimum wage employees aren't employed by big business, though - they are disproportionately employed by smaller businesses.

Hospitality and retail are the largest sectoral employers. Cleaners make up quite a large proportion - but are employed across all sectors.

FrancisUrquhart said:

Oh gawd, we are going to be stuck Boris for another 8 years aren't we.....

Probably only another six or seven. He could hand over to Sunak before the 2028 or 2029 election.

BluestBlue said:

Excellent header from @RochdalePioneers, with very little for me to disagree with. The harsh truth facing Labour is that for the party to win, its activists, intellectuals, and most passionate supporters have to lose.

Also, the Conservatives have to cock up monumentally and unmistakably.

Oh and Labour have to get a leader with charisma.

DougSeal said:

Nigelb said:

TimT said:

GIN1138 said:

Nigelb said:

I posted this at the end of the last thread.
It's not of any immediate alarm, but it's another indication of why we need to get the pandemic ended through vaccination as quickly as possible.

https://twitter.com/Bergthalerlab/status/1367508214233841669

I wonder if we'll all have to have regular booster jabs every 12 months or so to take account of the variants. A little bit like how they tweak to the Flu jab every year?

NigelB: I just saw another paper, which you may have posted, where some of the co-authors are from Novavax, which implied the opposite - that the T-cell response was very hardy to viral mutation as they recognize a larger number of epitopes than do antibodies.

Do you think the results of this study might, to some extent, be an artifact of doing a cell-free study, and looking at epitopes individually (if that is what they did), rather than at the total in vivo T-cell response?

Absolutely - it's less likely to happen or be of significance than the antibody evasion demonstrated.
I think the authors make the same point.
It's only demonstrating that T-cell evasion can happen, not that it will.

...The majority of nonsynonymous mutations found in the validated CTL escapes had not reached fixation, i.e., were present at frequencies between 0.02 and 0.42 (Fig. 1B). This could be explained by the shorter duration of infection with SARS-CoV-2 compared to HIV or HCV. It may also reflect on the degree to which HLA polymorphism affects viral spreading within human populations. The impact of single anchor residue substitutions on the response of CD4+ T cells is still unclear.

Our findings do not rule out that substitutions of residues facing the cognate T cell receptor may give rise to the emergence of CTL neoepitopes. Of note, we could show for the YLQ epitope that T cell clones that expanded in vitro in the presence of mutant peptides were identical to those expanded in response to the wild type peptide, suggesting a similar if not identical structural basis underlying TCR-epitope engagement.

This study does not allow direct conclusions to be drawn concerning potential selection pressures which shape the mutational landscape of CD8+ T cell epitopes. This would invariably involve accounting for the HLA genotype of all individuals from whom SARS-CoV-2 genomes were sequenced. Moreover, how CTL escape mutations are maintained during transmission between individuals with differing HLA subtypes and how viruses carrying epitope mutations affect disease severity requires further investigation....

Thanks for the clarification on that. I thought that was the case but I lack the scientific training to be sure!

You and I both.

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/KateAndrs/status/1367525932844666882?s=20

The EU? Commitment to free trade? What alternative reality have I woken up into?

FrancisUrquhart said:

Oh gawd, we are going to be stuck Boris for another 8 years aren't we.....

I keep telling people, but they don't believe...

.

eek said:

CarlottaVance said:

Pfizer’s jab is pricey and must be stored in freezers. In contrast, AstraZeneca’s is cheap and needs only normal refrigeration. If the AstraZeneca vaccine also matches Pfizer’s efficacy, which now appears likely, it could play a leading role in ending the pandemic—so long as people do not reject it based on ill-founded swipes from the likes of Mr Macron.

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2021/03/06/new-data-show-that-leading-covid-19-vaccines-have-similarly-high-efficacy

pfizer's jab may not actually require those expensive freezers - that's one of the things they are currently trialing now they have more time.

It still needs freezers, even if only conventional commercial ones. That imposes significant limits on where it can be used.
There's also a large cost differential, which matters a lot on a global scale.

MaxPB said:

Nigelb said:

How do you give a first dose to more than 100% of a cohort ?

https://twitter.com/HugoGye/status/1367487132416290819

People getting older and ONS population stats being out of date.

I'm not looking for boring answers.

In shocking news, the Spectator and Daily Express don't like the EU. What next, the Spectator not hiring avowed anti-Semites as social diarists?

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/anthonyjwells/status/1367533538682298370?s=20

I don't think that means a great deal about its actual worth, but it does demonstrate Rishi has done a good political job in selling it.

Philip_Thompson said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Oh gawd, we are going to be stuck Boris for another 8 years aren't we.....

Probably only another six or seven. He could hand over to Sunak before the 2028 or 2029 election.

I know it is always said, but really, who would want to be the one taking over 18 years into power?

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/anthonyjwells/status/1367533538682298370?s=20

Getting big business - instead of individuals and families alone - to share the burden of closing the deficit looks like a political masterstroke. As some of us may have observed yesterday.

bigjohnowls said:

squareroot2 said:

MaxPB said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1367527504643293189

Mental. I'm honestly shocked that Labour are getting no look in despite the Tories delivering 125k excess deaths in a year and putting taxes up quite significantly for individuals.

The Tories did not deliver 125k excess deaths.

They did and they havent finished yet

World beating death rates down to Tory mismanagement of the crisis and 10 years of Austerity meaning our infrastructure going into it was terrible

Needs to be said every day like Labours recession

Theres an idea

Maybe saying it every day to a public who find the claim both implausible and opportunistic is part of the reason for the current poll movement.