He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind – politicalbetting.com

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Pete, that's a largely fair comment.

It may have held more sway if Osborne hadn't indulged in end of the world portents of doom, rather diluting any other (more genuine) concerns about the costs of departure.

ydoethur said:

RochdalePioneers said:

ydoethur said:

RochdalePioneers said:

ydoethur said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Pulpstar said:

I don't get the "pleading" by Williamson over schoolkids to parents regarding Covid when the government has denied them a vaccine that would decrease transmissibilty over the summer hols ?????

Why what has he said? Perhaps he might want to consider his own "there is no risk, abolish the bubbles" command to schools.

He’s been reminding parents to get their children to do LFTs.

At least, in fairness, he hasn’t been quite as mad as John Swinney who wants to keep everyone in masks. He says there is a ‘compelling case’ but strangely I still haven’t seen any sign of that study on their effectiveness that he commissioned a year ago.

Considering that pox cases once again soared as schools went back it makes absolute sense to keep them in masks at least for an initial period. My son's high school has more buses than many small towns, bringing kids in from a wide catchment area. Its no wonder that schools are a brilliant transmission nexus.

So where is the actual evidence that they help? A study was commissioned last November to examine the case. Why has he not published it?

Masks are usually not worn correctly in any case, and they make teaching and learning very, very hard as well as being uncomfortable and unpleasant for the students.

Before he makes such a drastic decision he should be providing the evidence he has gathered. Why has has he not done so?

(If he has, please let me know because I’ve been trying to get hold of a copy for months.)

I'm not saying its a good option! Masks either work or they don't work. The consensus is that masks help stop the spread hence the mandatory use of masks we've all endured.

The alternative for schools isn't any better. Staff absence and kids not being taught at all as Covid rips back through schools and then back through the villages in their catchment area.

My point is that whether there is a consensus on this or not, he should have actual evidence to support his contention. This evidence was to be gathered as the result o of a proper scientific investigation that he - sensibly for once - commissioned ten months ago.

There should also be ample data given schools in England abandoned wearing masks while schools in Scotland retained them. Therefore giving two substantial samples to draw on.

So - where is it?

Again, if anyone does know where it is, please let me have a link because it’s really important on some work I’m doing for both my school and my union around the impact of mask wearing.

But if it hasn’t been published, all he’s doing is placebo bullshit. Trying to make people think Covid will be kept under control by wearing a piece of paper incorrectly isn’t really helpful given masks are in themselves such a very bad thing.

Northern_Al said:

rottenborough said:

This commentator wants Biden to be one term and be replaced by strong conservative leader "with an optimistic vision for a future based on freedom, deep-seated patriotism and a willingness to lead with our allies." A modern day Reagan.

Trump is not mentioned once in the article.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/08/30/conservatives-can-must-save-america-biden/

Gosh that's a a surprise! Conservatism is favoured in the Telegraph, and by this author:

Nile Gardiner is a British conservative commentator, director of the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom at The Heritage Foundation, and a former aide to British prime minister Margaret Thatcher.

CarlottaVance said:

“Clear victory for Scholz on TV”

Even the conservative @BILD, Germany’s most read newspaper, gives SPD’s chancellor candidate the win in last night’s TV debate (deeming it a “debacle” for Laschet).

https://twitter.com/JeremyCliffe/status/1432251252180664321?s=20

And a new German compound word - Debatten-Debakel.....no Google Translate required...

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

rottenborough said:

This commentator wants Biden to be one term and be replaced by strong conservative leader "with an optimistic vision for a future based on freedom, deep-seated patriotism and a willingness to lead with our allies." A modern day Reagan.

Trump is not mentioned once in the article.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/08/30/conservatives-can-must-save-america-biden/

"This far-left administration". Have we discovered HYUFD's true identity, and that he is moonlighting for the Daily Telegraph?

Nile Gardiner was a researcher for and aide to Baroness Thatcher and foreign policy adviser to Giuliani's 2008 Presidential campaign and heads the Heritage Foundation Thatcher Center for Freedom in DC. So rather more distinguished than me but a good chap certainly

Carnyx said:

Mexicanpete said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Pete, aye, it was difficult and has been poorly handled by multiple UK governments.

However.

The 2007 referendum on Lisbon should've been held. Integrating endlessly without recourse to the electorate because the main parties all agreed with one another led to the rise of UKIP and then a referendum on the nuclear option rather than binning a referendum (about which we'd been promised a referendum by all major UK parties, a promise subsequently reneged upon by two of the three).

If the UK political class had bothered to either address the concerns of the electorate or make a case for the EU (in addition to not making manifesto pledges then breaking them immediately) we'd be in a better state of affairs.

I don't dispute your final paragraph, but that relates to Brexit as a separate issue. I agree forty years of UK Governments of all stripes blaming the EU for their failures led us to Brexit, but we are where we are with that.

My point was that those promoting the notion of leaving the EU ignored Northern Ireland, and then after the event blamed the inevitable issues Brexit would raise on the GFA. This is a particularly handy device for Johnson apologists.

It is disingenuous of Johnson apologists to blame the GFA in hindsight for the inevitability of a border in the sea, when a UKIP- style Brexit was determined by Johnson over twenty years later.

Absolutely right. The Brexiters poohpoohed the idea that the GFA and NI comprised a major issue. Possibly because they still thought Ireland was in the UK and could be ordered around, on at least one occasion witj the threat of An Gorta Mor Mark 2. Some of the comments at the time from Tory MPs did give the impresson some of them were a century or more out in their understanding of the political geography of the Isles of Ireland and Britain.

ydoethur said:

Thanks. Although not perhaps especially helpful in a school context in the UK given our different testing regime.

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

pigeon said:

Dura_Ace said:

IshmaelZ said:

Dura_Ace said:

MrEd said:

Thanks for the thread TSE

Two things:

1. The DUP effectively did not have any choice in backing Brexit or facilitating it. It’s clear that pro-Brexit voters would have chosen Brexit over keeping NI in the Union if the NI problem was seen to be blocking Brexit. So allowing the NI tail to wag the England / Wales dog was never going to happen;

2. I’m sceptical of these polls now showing such high support for a United Ireland. Wait until you get into a campaign and NI voters suddenly realise they have to pay for their GP visits and medical treatment if they become part of an United Ireland

Identity overpowers economic considerations as Brexit and Trump demonstrate.

I don't think so. People may not be sensitive to forecasts of declines in GDP per capita, but they are sure as fuck sensitive to buses which say "Let's start paying £50 a pop per GP visit if our gross income exceeds £14,000" which seems to be the case in Ireland. Killer point from @MrEd.

The prospect of a united Ireland is not going founder on the rocks of fucking GP charges. If necessary the HSE will reform (or promise to reform) the system just enough to obfuscate and neutralise the issue.

If anything's going to kill off reunification it'll be the plain fact that Northern Ireland is a very expensive pain in the backside. The voters of the Republic might be delighted to welcome into the fold the (presumably very pissed off) 40% of the Northern populace that identifies as "British only" and have their taxes shoot through the roof to keep them in the style to which they are accustomed, but I doubt it.

The North is heavily subsidised. Yes, the Republic is rich, but OTOH Great Britain is 13 times its size and can more readily shoulder the burden. Follow the money.

Which is precisely why NI should be cut free.

Why is NI a burden? Why have we contributed so much and seen so little return for it?

Why can the Republic be rich, England be rich, but NI is a backwater burden?

The union isn't working.

NI is richer than the North East of England in terms of average house price and as much a part of the UK as it is

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices/bulletins/housepriceindex/march2021

Hence the levelling up agenda for the North, though it's worth noting that the North East does not remotely get the same funding as NI has which is money poured permanently down the drain.

There is nothing preventing NI from catching up with the Republic besides the failed union.

NickPalmer said:

Had an interesting chat with a well-connected person (no, not Hunt) about options for Taliban negotiations. A key issue, as with Iran, is that we're sitting on a lump of cash (£1 billion or so) which we accept belongs to Afghanistan, but which we won't release except as part of a deal (the Americans have the same situation but with £10 billion). Afghan National Bank reserves accessible to them come to about £1 billion.

So in principle we could foresee a deal whereby we got everyone out who we want and a guarantee of a crackdown on ISIS-K (both of which seem achievable) in return for a gradual release to them of their own money. Cost to Britain would be £0, and it would avoid the unfortunate impression that depositing money in British banks is not safe if the politics change. On the other hand, it seems fairly certain that the Taliban regime will be extremely oppressive, especially for women, even if not quite the insanity of some of their actions as an insurgency. So do we want to deal any deal with them tghat involved releasing any money, or do we want them to collapse - and perhaps create a vacuum filled with angry terror groups? Apparently, Government opinion is divided, with Sunak favouring a hard line - no deals, total sanctions - and Raab and Wallace favouring a stick and carrot approach. Johnson's view is not yet clear. The US is potentially open-minded, but unlike Britain they have a hardline opposition waiting to call them soft on terror.

FWIW I think willingness to explore deals is sensible, coupled with observation of how things develop when the Taliban government finally sees the light of day (ETA September 1).

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Pete, the Miliband-SNP line worked because it was credible. And it's still a problem for Labour now. To win the UK they almost certainly need Scotland. But that doesn't seem likely, and a deal with the SNP, or prospect thereof, isn't going to do them any favours in England.

The problem with "if we leave the EU you will suffer leprosy of the genitals and the island of Great Britain will sink beneath the waves" is that it crosses the boundary from "Oh no!" to "Yeah, right."

Charles said:

Mexicanpete said:

DavidL said:

The replacement of the DUP with the Ulster Unionists is presumably good news for Boris as the latter are much closer to the Conservative party than the former. What we now need is the SDLP to revive against Sinn Fein but there is very little evidence of that yet. One of the major failures of the GFA was the way both communities seemed driven to the extremes to protect their interests. A reverse of that trend would be welcome.

So the GFA was a "failure" as it allowed both communities to be driven to extremes to protect their interests?

Well the two communities weren't exactly getting on like a house on fire before were they?

The GFA was not a "failure" until Brexit. How foolish of the authors not to envisage Brexit.

The GFA was not perfect by any means, but it was a series of compromises that allowed polar opposites like Paisley and McGuinness to work together, of a fashion for some of the time, to create something from the ashes of the troubles.

The GFA allowed people to paint kerbstones, put up murals and march around in orange without too much offence to the other side, but Brexit? Brexit (and a UKIP Brexit at that) forced the UK Government to choose between the extreme interests. A land border at Dundalk or a border in the Irish Sea/North Channel. Now, one or other extreme interest was inevitably going to be disappointed.

Don’t forget that the architects of the GFA - Trimble and Hume - saw their parties destroyed. That wasn’t a positive outcome from GFA - but it was predictable as voters are rational

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

rottenborough said:

This commentator wants Biden to be one term and be replaced by strong conservative leader "with an optimistic vision for a future based on freedom, deep-seated patriotism and a willingness to lead with our allies." A modern day Reagan.

Trump is not mentioned once in the article.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/08/30/conservatives-can-must-save-america-biden/

He also called Trump the most pro British President since Reagan

https://twitter.com/NileGardiner/status/1135980377485512704?s=20

Reagan wasn't a whole lot of help to Britain, and Mrs Thatch. in particular, over the Falklands as I recall, so what's his point?

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

rottenborough said:

This commentator wants Biden to be one term and be replaced by strong conservative leader "with an optimistic vision for a future based on freedom, deep-seated patriotism and a willingness to lead with our allies." A modern day Reagan.

Trump is not mentioned once in the article.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/08/30/conservatives-can-must-save-america-biden/

He also called Trump the most pro British President since Reagan

https://twitter.com/NileGardiner/status/1135980377485512704?s=20

Reagan wasn't a whole lot of help to Britain, and Mrs Thatch. in particular, over the Falklands as I recall, so what's his point?

Charles said:

Mexicanpete said:

DavidL said:

The replacement of the DUP with the Ulster Unionists is presumably good news for Boris as the latter are much closer to the Conservative party than the former. What we now need is the SDLP to revive against Sinn Fein but there is very little evidence of that yet. One of the major failures of the GFA was the way both communities seemed driven to the extremes to protect their interests. A reverse of that trend would be welcome.

So the GFA was a "failure" as it allowed both communities to be driven to extremes to protect their interests?

Well the two communities weren't exactly getting on like a house on fire before were they?

The GFA was not a "failure" until Brexit. How foolish of the authors not to envisage Brexit.

The GFA was not perfect by any means, but it was a series of compromises that allowed polar opposites like Paisley and McGuinness to work together, of a fashion for some of the time, to create something from the ashes of the troubles.

The GFA allowed people to paint kerbstones, put up murals and march around in orange without too much offence to the other side, but Brexit? Brexit (and a UKIP Brexit at that) forced the UK Government to choose between the extreme interests. A land border at Dundalk or a border in the Irish Sea/North Channel. Now, one or other extreme interest was inevitably going to be disappointed.

Don’t forget that the architects of the GFA - Trimble and Hume - saw their parties destroyed. That wasn’t a positive outcome from GFA - but it was predictable as voters are rational

ydoethur said:

Nigelb said:

ydoethur said:

RochdalePioneers said:

ydoethur said:

RochdalePioneers said:

ydoethur said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Pulpstar said:

I don't get the "pleading" by Williamson over schoolkids to parents regarding Covid when the government has denied them a vaccine that would decrease transmissibilty over the summer hols ?????

Why what has he said? Perhaps he might want to consider his own "there is no risk, abolish the bubbles" command to schools.

He’s been reminding parents to get their children to do LFTs.

At least, in fairness, he hasn’t been quite as mad as John Swinney who wants to keep everyone in masks. He says there is a ‘compelling case’ but strangely I still haven’t seen any sign of that study on their effectiveness that he commissioned a year ago.

Considering that pox cases once again soared as schools went back it makes absolute sense to keep them in masks at least for an initial period. My son's high school has more buses than many small towns, bringing kids in from a wide catchment area. Its no wonder that schools are a brilliant transmission nexus.

So where is the actual evidence that they help? A study was commissioned last November to examine the case. Why has he not published it?

Masks are usually not worn correctly in any case, and they make teaching and learning very, very hard as well as being uncomfortable and unpleasant for the students.

Before he makes such a drastic decision he should be providing the evidence he has gathered. Why has has he not done so?

(If he has, please let me know because I’ve been trying to get hold of a copy for months.)

I'm not saying its a good option! Masks either work or they don't work. The consensus is that masks help stop the spread hence the mandatory use of masks we've all endured.

The alternative for schools isn't any better. Staff absence and kids not being taught at all as Covid rips back through schools and then back through the villages in their catchment area.

My point is that whether there is a consensus on this or not, he should have actual evidence to support his contention. This evidence was to be gathered as the result o of a proper scientific investigation that he - sensibly for once - commissioned ten months ago.

There should also be ample data given schools in England abandoned wearing masks while schools in Scotland retained them. Therefore giving two substantial samples to draw on.

So - where is it?

Again, if anyone does know where it is, please let me have a link because it’s really important on some work I’m doing for both my school and my union around the impact of mask wearing.

But if it hasn’t been published, all he’s doing is placebo bullshit. Trying to make people think Covid will be kept under control by wearing a piece of paper incorrectly isn’t really helpful given masks are in themselves such a very bad thing.

If I’ve time, I’ll try to dig something up for you. Ten months ago was of course prior to Delta, which will have changed all the calculations.

Regarding classroom spread, this is an interesting paper, which I posted a couple of days back:
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7035e2.htm
On May 25, 2021, the Marin County Department of Public Health (MCPH) was notified by an elementary school that on May 23, an unvaccinated teacher had reported receiving a positive test result for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. The teacher reported becoming symptomatic on May 19, but continued to work for 2 days before receiving a test on May 21. On occasion during this time, the teacher read aloud unmasked to the class despite school requirements to mask while indoors. Beginning May 23, additional cases of COVID-19 were reported among other staff members, students, parents, and siblings connected to the school. To characterize the outbreak, on May 26, MCPH initiated case investigation and contact tracing that included whole genome sequencing (WGS) of available specimens. A total of 27 cases were identified, including that of the teacher. During May 23–26, among the teacher’s 24 students, 22 students, all ineligible for vaccination because of age, received testing for SARS-CoV-2; 12 received positive test results. The attack rate in the two rows seated closest to the teacher’s desk was 80% (eight of 10) and was 28% (four of 14) in the three back rows…

(Note, if the school had been using lateral flow tests twice a week, this would likely have been avoided.)

Thanks. Although not perhaps especially helpful in a school context in the UK given our different testing regime.

One thing that does interest me in that report is how the link to unmasking is implicit, but only in one sentence and not followed up.

Mexicanpete said:

Dura_Ace said:

I do wonder what's going on with Gove. He and his monster hog are also on some dating app.

Sarah's out there and available?

kjh said:

NickPalmer said:

Had an interesting chat with a well-connected person (no, not Hunt) about options for Taliban negotiations. A key issue, as with Iran, is that we're sitting on a lump of cash (£1 billion or so) which we accept belongs to Afghanistan, but which we won't release except as part of a deal (the Americans have the same situation but with £10 billion). Afghan National Bank reserves accessible to them come to about £1 billion.

So in principle we could foresee a deal whereby we got everyone out who we want and a guarantee of a crackdown on ISIS-K (both of which seem achievable) in return for a gradual release to them of their own money. Cost to Britain would be £0, and it would avoid the unfortunate impression that depositing money in British banks is not safe if the politics change. On the other hand, it seems fairly certain that the Taliban regime will be extremely oppressive, especially for women, even if not quite the insanity of some of their actions as an insurgency. So do we want to deal any deal with them tghat involved releasing any money, or do we want them to collapse - and perhaps create a vacuum filled with angry terror groups? Apparently, Government opinion is divided, with Sunak favouring a hard line - no deals, total sanctions - and Raab and Wallace favouring a stick and carrot approach. Johnson's view is not yet clear. The US is potentially open-minded, but unlike Britain they have a hardline opposition waiting to call them soft on terror.

FWIW I think willingness to explore deals is sensible, coupled with observation of how things develop when the Taliban government finally sees the light of day (ETA September 1).

Like the post but isn't one of the problems here that the Taliban do not have a structure that ensures any such agreement will be honoured locally. Would you come forward to the local Taliban on that promise? These people are in an impossible position.

kjh said:

NickPalmer said:

Had an interesting chat with a well-connected person (no, not Hunt) about options for Taliban negotiations. A key issue, as with Iran, is that we're sitting on a lump of cash (£1 billion or so) which we accept belongs to Afghanistan, but which we won't release except as part of a deal (the Americans have the same situation but with £10 billion). Afghan National Bank reserves accessible to them come to about £1 billion.

So in principle we could foresee a deal whereby we got everyone out who we want and a guarantee of a crackdown on ISIS-K (both of which seem achievable) in return for a gradual release to them of their own money. Cost to Britain would be £0, and it would avoid the unfortunate impression that depositing money in British banks is not safe if the politics change. On the other hand, it seems fairly certain that the Taliban regime will be extremely oppressive, especially for women, even if not quite the insanity of some of their actions as an insurgency. So do we want to deal any deal with them tghat involved releasing any money, or do we want them to collapse - and perhaps create a vacuum filled with angry terror groups? Apparently, Government opinion is divided, with Sunak favouring a hard line - no deals, total sanctions - and Raab and Wallace favouring a stick and carrot approach. Johnson's view is not yet clear. The US is potentially open-minded, but unlike Britain they have a hardline opposition waiting to call them soft on terror.

FWIW I think willingness to explore deals is sensible, coupled with observation of how things develop when the Taliban government finally sees the light of day (ETA September 1).

Like the post but isn't one of the problems here that the Taliban do not have a structure that ensures any such agreement will be honoured locally. Would you come forward to the local Taliban on that promise? These people are in an impossible position.

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

rottenborough said:

This commentator wants Biden to be one term and be replaced by strong conservative leader "with an optimistic vision for a future based on freedom, deep-seated patriotism and a willingness to lead with our allies." A modern day Reagan.

Trump is not mentioned once in the article.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/08/30/conservatives-can-must-save-america-biden/

He also called Trump the most pro British President since Reagan

https://twitter.com/NileGardiner/status/1135980377485512704?s=20

Reagan wasn't a whole lot of help to Britain, and Mrs Thatch. in particular, over the Falklands as I recall, so what's his point?

Reagan supplied aviation fuel and Sidewinder missiles to the UK, the French had provided Exocets to the Argentines before the war

I am not sure, but I think you are finessing history for your own ends here. Does BEFORE need to be in capitals?

Roger said:

While on the subject of nasty pieces of work I came across this charming story of a Brexiteer hero. Sorry it's a couple of days out of date but when even the Mail seem stunned by it's odiousness.....

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9932245/Laurence-Fox-defends-racism-accusations-Twitter-spat-Benjamin-Mendy-rape.html

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

rottenborough said:

This commentator wants Biden to be one term and be replaced by strong conservative leader "with an optimistic vision for a future based on freedom, deep-seated patriotism and a willingness to lead with our allies." A modern day Reagan.

Trump is not mentioned once in the article.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/08/30/conservatives-can-must-save-america-biden/

He also called Trump the most pro British President since Reagan

https://twitter.com/NileGardiner/status/1135980377485512704?s=20

Reagan wasn't a whole lot of help to Britain, and Mrs Thatch. in particular, over the Falklands as I recall, so what's his point?

Reagan supplied aviation fuel and Sidewinder missiles to the UK, the French had provided Exocets to the Argentines before the war

I am not sure, but I think you are finessing history for your own ends here. Does BEFORE need to be in capitals?

kle4 said:

A united Ireland makes sense on a number of points, but occasionally people stumble into arguing for it on the basis that both current entities are in the same island so should be together or words to that effect, which I doubt they hold consistently for other islands like hispaniola, new guinea or Britain, as if islands are required to have unified politics.

RochdalePioneers said:

HYUFD said:

Charles said:

Mexicanpete said:

DavidL said:

The replacement of the DUP with the Ulster Unionists is presumably good news for Boris as the latter are much closer to the Conservative party than the former. What we now need is the SDLP to revive against Sinn Fein but there is very little evidence of that yet. One of the major failures of the GFA was the way both communities seemed driven to the extremes to protect their interests. A reverse of that trend would be welcome.

So the GFA was a "failure" as it allowed both communities to be driven to extremes to protect their interests?

Well the two communities weren't exactly getting on like a house on fire before were they?

The GFA was not a "failure" until Brexit. How foolish of the authors not to envisage Brexit.

The GFA was not perfect by any means, but it was a series of compromises that allowed polar opposites like Paisley and McGuinness to work together, of a fashion for some of the time, to create something from the ashes of the troubles.

The GFA allowed people to paint kerbstones, put up murals and march around in orange without too much offence to the other side, but Brexit? Brexit (and a UKIP Brexit at that) forced the UK Government to choose between the extreme interests. A land border at Dundalk or a border in the Irish Sea/North Channel. Now, one or other extreme interest was inevitably going to be disappointed.

Don’t forget that the architects of the GFA - Trimble and Hume - saw their parties destroyed. That wasn’t a positive outcome from GFA - but it was predictable as voters are rational

If you ended up with SF and TUV as the 2 biggest parties in NI at Stormont which is not impossible on the latest poll it is hard to see powersharing ever returning, the TUV are harder line even than the DUP let alone the UUP of Trimble and SF still harder line than the SDLP of Hume.

So there would have to be direct joint rule from Dublin and Westminster indefinitely until the political makeup changed again, the GFA as was would effectively be over

If the unionist vote splits 3 ways then we are going to see Alliance and SDLP and SF gains from unionists. There will be a centre/nationalist majority of MLAs elected.

Charles said:

kle4 said:

A united Ireland makes sense on a number of points, but occasionally people stumble into arguing for it on the basis that both current entities are in the same island so should be together or words to that effect, which I doubt they hold consistently for other islands like hispaniola, new guinea or Britain, as if islands are required to have unified politics.

The partition of Ireland is a historical anomaly, driven by decisions hundreds of years ago and then a political miscalculation by Carson combined with shameless manipulation and opportunism by Craig. It were better that it had never happened.

Unfortunately we are where we are - unless and until our brothers and sisters in the North chose differently they remain part of the United kingdom (which is why @Philip_Thompson ‘s approach - “good riddance” - is so inappropriate)

RochdalePioneers said:

Gardenwalker said:

Bringing two topics together, Gove’s —- ?crisis —- is additionally worrying in that he’s about the only sentient member of Cabinet and certainly the only one who is thinking about the Union.

It may even be that the slow failure of Brexit is contributing to his mental health issues.

If Govey wants to go out on the razz fuelled by marching powder to embrace young gentlemen then good for him. He's been stuck in a lie for long enough, let the man live.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. B, big test now for many countries, especially the US. Go along with it and just accept China's land (sea) grab, or tell them to sod off?

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

pigeon said:

Dura_Ace said:

IshmaelZ said:

Dura_Ace said:

MrEd said:

Thanks for the thread TSE

Two things:

1. The DUP effectively did not have any choice in backing Brexit or facilitating it. It’s clear that pro-Brexit voters would have chosen Brexit over keeping NI in the Union if the NI problem was seen to be blocking Brexit. So allowing the NI tail to wag the England / Wales dog was never going to happen;

2. I’m sceptical of these polls now showing such high support for a United Ireland. Wait until you get into a campaign and NI voters suddenly realise they have to pay for their GP visits and medical treatment if they become part of an United Ireland

Identity overpowers economic considerations as Brexit and Trump demonstrate.

I don't think so. People may not be sensitive to forecasts of declines in GDP per capita, but they are sure as fuck sensitive to buses which say "Let's start paying £50 a pop per GP visit if our gross income exceeds £14,000" which seems to be the case in Ireland. Killer point from @MrEd.

The prospect of a united Ireland is not going founder on the rocks of fucking GP charges. If necessary the HSE will reform (or promise to reform) the system just enough to obfuscate and neutralise the issue.

If anything's going to kill off reunification it'll be the plain fact that Northern Ireland is a very expensive pain in the backside. The voters of the Republic might be delighted to welcome into the fold the (presumably very pissed off) 40% of the Northern populace that identifies as "British only" and have their taxes shoot through the roof to keep them in the style to which they are accustomed, but I doubt it.

The North is heavily subsidised. Yes, the Republic is rich, but OTOH Great Britain is 13 times its size and can more readily shoulder the burden. Follow the money.

Which is precisely why NI should be cut free.

Why is NI a burden? Why have we contributed so much and seen so little return for it?

Why can the Republic be rich, England be rich, but NI is a backwater burden?

The union isn't working.

NI is richer than the North East of England in terms of average house price and as much a part of the UK as it is

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices/bulletins/housepriceindex/march2021

Hence the levelling up agenda for the North, though it's worth noting that the North East does not remotely get the same funding as NI has which is money poured permanently down the drain.

There is nothing preventing NI from catching up with the Republic besides the failed union.

There is nothing wrong with the Union and the North East gets plenty of net subsidy from London and the South East too.

The Republic has lower taxes than the UK but also has charges for hospital visits etc unlike the UK

kinabalu said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

pigeon said:

Dura_Ace said:

IshmaelZ said:

Dura_Ace said:

MrEd said:

Thanks for the thread TSE

Two things:

1. The DUP effectively did not have any choice in backing Brexit or facilitating it. It’s clear that pro-Brexit voters would have chosen Brexit over keeping NI in the Union if the NI problem was seen to be blocking Brexit. So allowing the NI tail to wag the England / Wales dog was never going to happen;

2. I’m sceptical of these polls now showing such high support for a United Ireland. Wait until you get into a campaign and NI voters suddenly realise they have to pay for their GP visits and medical treatment if they become part of an United Ireland

Identity overpowers economic considerations as Brexit and Trump demonstrate.

I don't think so. People may not be sensitive to forecasts of declines in GDP per capita, but they are sure as fuck sensitive to buses which say "Let's start paying £50 a pop per GP visit if our gross income exceeds £14,000" which seems to be the case in Ireland. Killer point from @MrEd.

The prospect of a united Ireland is not going founder on the rocks of fucking GP charges. If necessary the HSE will reform (or promise to reform) the system just enough to obfuscate and neutralise the issue.

If anything's going to kill off reunification it'll be the plain fact that Northern Ireland is a very expensive pain in the backside. The voters of the Republic might be delighted to welcome into the fold the (presumably very pissed off) 40% of the Northern populace that identifies as "British only" and have their taxes shoot through the roof to keep them in the style to which they are accustomed, but I doubt it.

The North is heavily subsidised. Yes, the Republic is rich, but OTOH Great Britain is 13 times its size and can more readily shoulder the burden. Follow the money.

Which is precisely why NI should be cut free.

Why is NI a burden? Why have we contributed so much and seen so little return for it?

Why can the Republic be rich, England be rich, but NI is a backwater burden?

The union isn't working.

NI is richer than the North East of England in terms of average house price and as much a part of the UK as it is

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices/bulletins/housepriceindex/march2021

Hence the levelling up agenda for the North, though it's worth noting that the North East does not remotely get the same funding as NI has which is money poured permanently down the drain.

There is nothing preventing NI from catching up with the Republic besides the failed union.

There is nothing wrong with the Union and the North East gets plenty of net subsidy from London and the South East too.

The Republic has lower taxes than the UK but also has charges for hospital visits etc unlike the UK

"We don't get fees cos we're part of the Union." - I can see this on the Better Together bus when the Border Poll happens.

More seriously, relative to Sindy, I detect a certain warmth from you towards the idea of Irish Reunification. Would this be fair or have I misread things very badly?

isam said:

Northern_Al said:

isam said:

Mental health campaigning Alcoholic with a history of psychosis kicks a man when he’s down

https://twitter.com/campbellclaret/status/1432034362342715396?s=21

Kicking a man when he's down? Not sure about that. Gove looks to be having the time of his life in the video Campbell refers to.

Gardenwalker said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Gardenwalker said:

Bringing two topics together, Gove’s —- ?crisis —- is additionally worrying in that he’s about the only sentient member of Cabinet and certainly the only one who is thinking about the Union.

It may even be that the slow failure of Brexit is contributing to his mental health issues.

If Govey wants to go out on the razz fuelled by marching powder to embrace young gentlemen then good for him. He's been stuck in a lie for long enough, let the man live.

I am very much live and let live.

But you and I are both old enough in the tooth though to recognise mental health issues when we see them.

Argue amongst yourselves

Mexicanpete said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Pete, aye, it was difficult and has been poorly handled by multiple UK governments.

However.

The 2007 referendum on Lisbon should've been held. Integrating endlessly without recourse to the electorate because the main parties all agreed with one another led to the rise of UKIP and then a referendum on the nuclear option rather than binning a referendum (about which we'd been promised a referendum by all major UK parties, a promise subsequently reneged upon by two of the three).

If the UK political class had bothered to either address the concerns of the electorate or make a case for the EU (in addition to not making manifesto pledges then breaking them immediately) we'd be in a better state of affairs.

I don't dispute your final paragraph, but that relates to Brexit as a separate issue. I agree forty years of UK Governments of all stripes blaming the EU for their failures led us to Brexit, but we are where we are with that.

My point was that those promoting the notion of leaving the EU ignored Northern Ireland, and then after the event blamed the inevitable issues Brexit would raise on the GFA. This is a particularly handy device for Johnson apologists.

It is disingenuous of Johnson apologists to blame the GFA in hindsight for the inevitability of a border in the sea, when a UKIP- style Brexit was determined by Johnson over twenty years later.

OldKingCole said:

HYUFD said:

OldKingCole said:

IshmaelZ said:

Dura_Ace said:

IshmaelZ said:

Dura_Ace said:

MrEd said:

Thanks for the thread TSE

Two things:

1. The DUP effectively did not have any choice in backing Brexit or facilitating it. It’s clear that pro-Brexit voters would have chosen Brexit over keeping NI in the Union if the NI problem was seen to be blocking Brexit. So allowing the NI tail to wag the England / Wales dog was never going to happen;

2. I’m sceptical of these polls now showing such high support for a United Ireland. Wait until you get into a campaign and NI voters suddenly realise they have to pay for their GP visits and medical treatment if they become part of an United Ireland

Identity overpowers economic considerations as Brexit and Trump demonstrate.

I don't think so. People may not be sensitive to forecasts of declines in GDP per capita, but they are sure as fuck sensitive to buses which say "Let's start paying £50 a pop per GP visit if our gross income exceeds £14,000" which seems to be the case in Ireland. Killer point from @MrEd.

The prospect of a united Ireland is not going founder on the rocks of fucking GP charges. If necessary the HSE will reform (or promise to reform) the system just enough to obfuscate and neutralise the issue.

The prospect of continued EU membership foundered on the rocks of fucking NHS themed wankerdom.

Mind you I know zilch about NI. other than occasionally going to Co Armagh to h*nt. It may be the NHS is regarded as the great Satan for doing abortions, and they'll be glad to be shot of it.

Abortions are now legal in the RoI, are they not?

As they are now in NI too since 2020.

Abortion was legalised in the RoI in 2018 after a referendum before the UK government legalised abortion in NI.

Note County Donegal, which borders NI in the west, was the only Irish county to vote against legalising abortion. The Catholic Church is very strong there and ironically the Catholic church and DUP cooperated in opposing abortion, the anathema of Paisley long gone.

Gay marriage was also only legalised in NI in 2020 by the UK government, gay marriage was legalised in Ireland 5 years before in 2015 after a referendum

Is that just information or are you trying to make a point?

The thought I take from it is that the RoI is considerably far ahead of the UK, as far as 'democracy' is concerned. As you've indicated several times, the UK is, as the late Viscount Hailsham pointed out many years ago, an 'elective dictatorship'.

RochdalePioneers said:

TBH the thing that really made me goggle is that its the early hours and he's off his tits wearing a suit. I'd love to wind the clock back to the previous day - at which point did his politics need to be wearing a suit on a Saturday turn into "lets go to O'Neills" then into "lets line them up" and then "aren't you a lovely pair of young men"

kinabalu said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

pigeon said:

Dura_Ace said:

IshmaelZ said:

Dura_Ace said:

MrEd said:

Thanks for the thread TSE

Two things:

1. The DUP effectively did not have any choice in backing Brexit or facilitating it. It’s clear that pro-Brexit voters would have chosen Brexit over keeping NI in the Union if the NI problem was seen to be blocking Brexit. So allowing the NI tail to wag the England / Wales dog was never going to happen;

2. I’m sceptical of these polls now showing such high support for a United Ireland. Wait until you get into a campaign and NI voters suddenly realise they have to pay for their GP visits and medical treatment if they become part of an United Ireland

Identity overpowers economic considerations as Brexit and Trump demonstrate.

I don't think so. People may not be sensitive to forecasts of declines in GDP per capita, but they are sure as fuck sensitive to buses which say "Let's start paying £50 a pop per GP visit if our gross income exceeds £14,000" which seems to be the case in Ireland. Killer point from @MrEd.

The prospect of a united Ireland is not going founder on the rocks of fucking GP charges. If necessary the HSE will reform (or promise to reform) the system just enough to obfuscate and neutralise the issue.

If anything's going to kill off reunification it'll be the plain fact that Northern Ireland is a very expensive pain in the backside. The voters of the Republic might be delighted to welcome into the fold the (presumably very pissed off) 40% of the Northern populace that identifies as "British only" and have their taxes shoot through the roof to keep them in the style to which they are accustomed, but I doubt it.

The North is heavily subsidised. Yes, the Republic is rich, but OTOH Great Britain is 13 times its size and can more readily shoulder the burden. Follow the money.

Which is precisely why NI should be cut free.

Why is NI a burden? Why have we contributed so much and seen so little return for it?

Why can the Republic be rich, England be rich, but NI is a backwater burden?

The union isn't working.

NI is richer than the North East of England in terms of average house price and as much a part of the UK as it is

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices/bulletins/housepriceindex/march2021

Hence the levelling up agenda for the North, though it's worth noting that the North East does not remotely get the same funding as NI has which is money poured permanently down the drain.

There is nothing preventing NI from catching up with the Republic besides the failed union.

There is nothing wrong with the Union and the North East gets plenty of net subsidy from London and the South East too.

The Republic has lower taxes than the UK but also has charges for hospital visits etc unlike the UK

"We don't get fees cos we're part of the Union." - I can see this on the Better Together bus when the Border Poll happens.

More seriously, relative to Sindy, I detect a certain warmth from you towards the idea of Irish Reunification. Would this be fair or have I misread things very badly?

isam said:

Northern_Al said:

isam said:

Mental health campaigning Alcoholic with a history of psychosis kicks a man when he’s down

https://twitter.com/campbellclaret/status/1432034362342715396?s=21

Kicking a man when he's down? Not sure about that. Gove looks to be having the time of his life in the video Campbell refers to.

Gardenwalker said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Gardenwalker said:

Bringing two topics together, Gove’s —- ?crisis —- is additionally worrying in that he’s about the only sentient member of Cabinet and certainly the only one who is thinking about the Union.

It may even be that the slow failure of Brexit is contributing to his mental health issues.

If Govey wants to go out on the razz fuelled by marching powder to embrace young gentlemen then good for him. He's been stuck in a lie for long enough, let the man live.

I am very much live and let live.

But you and I are both old enough in the tooth though to recognise mental health issues when we see them.

Argue amongst yourselves

Carnyx said:

Mexicanpete said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Pete, aye, it was difficult and has been poorly handled by multiple UK governments.

However.

The 2007 referendum on Lisbon should've been held. Integrating endlessly without recourse to the electorate because the main parties all agreed with one another led to the rise of UKIP and then a referendum on the nuclear option rather than binning a referendum (about which we'd been promised a referendum by all major UK parties, a promise subsequently reneged upon by two of the three).

If the UK political class had bothered to either address the concerns of the electorate or make a case for the EU (in addition to not making manifesto pledges then breaking them immediately) we'd be in a better state of affairs.

I don't dispute your final paragraph, but that relates to Brexit as a separate issue. I agree forty years of UK Governments of all stripes blaming the EU for their failures led us to Brexit, but we are where we are with that.

My point was that those promoting the notion of leaving the EU ignored Northern Ireland, and then after the event blamed the inevitable issues Brexit would raise on the GFA. This is a particularly handy device for Johnson apologists.

It is disingenuous of Johnson apologists to blame the GFA in hindsight for the inevitability of a border in the sea, when a UKIP- style Brexit was determined by Johnson over twenty years later.

Absolutely right. The Brexiters poohpoohed the idea that the GFA and NI comprised a major issue. Possibly because they still thought Ireland was in the UK and could be ordered around, on at least one occasion witj the threat of An Gorta Mor Mark 2. Some of the comments at the time from Tory MPs did give the impresson some of them were a century or more out in their understanding of the political geography of the Isles of Ireland and Britain.

RochdalePioneers said:

HYUFD said:

Charles said:

Mexicanpete said:

DavidL said:

The replacement of the DUP with the Ulster Unionists is presumably good news for Boris as the latter are much closer to the Conservative party than the former. What we now need is the SDLP to revive against Sinn Fein but there is very little evidence of that yet. One of the major failures of the GFA was the way both communities seemed driven to the extremes to protect their interests. A reverse of that trend would be welcome.

So the GFA was a "failure" as it allowed both communities to be driven to extremes to protect their interests?

Well the two communities weren't exactly getting on like a house on fire before were they?

The GFA was not a "failure" until Brexit. How foolish of the authors not to envisage Brexit.

The GFA was not perfect by any means, but it was a series of compromises that allowed polar opposites like Paisley and McGuinness to work together, of a fashion for some of the time, to create something from the ashes of the troubles.

The GFA allowed people to paint kerbstones, put up murals and march around in orange without too much offence to the other side, but Brexit? Brexit (and a UKIP Brexit at that) forced the UK Government to choose between the extreme interests. A land border at Dundalk or a border in the Irish Sea/North Channel. Now, one or other extreme interest was inevitably going to be disappointed.

Don’t forget that the architects of the GFA - Trimble and Hume - saw their parties destroyed. That wasn’t a positive outcome from GFA - but it was predictable as voters are rational

If you ended up with SF and TUV as the 2 biggest parties in NI at Stormont which is not impossible on the latest poll it is hard to see powersharing ever returning, the TUV are harder line even than the DUP let alone the UUP of Trimble and SF still harder line than the SDLP of Hume.

So there would have to be direct joint rule from Dublin and Westminster indefinitely until the political makeup changed again, the GFA as was would effectively be over

If the unionist vote splits 3 ways then we are going to see Alliance and SDLP and SF gains from unionists. There will be a centre/nationalist majority of MLAs elected.

NickPalmer said:

Had an interesting chat with a well-connected person (no, not Hunt) about options for Taliban negotiations. A key issue, as with Iran, is that we're sitting on a lump of cash (£1 billion or so) which we accept belongs to Afghanistan, but which we won't release except as part of a deal (the Americans have the same situation but with £10 billion). Afghan National Bank reserves accessible to them come to about £1 billion.

So in principle we could foresee a deal whereby we got everyone out who we want and a guarantee of a crackdown on ISIS-K (both of which seem achievable) in return for a gradual release to them of their own money. Cost to Britain would be £0, and it would avoid the unfortunate impression that depositing money in British banks is not safe if the politics change. On the other hand, it seems fairly certain that the Taliban regime will be extremely oppressive, especially for women, even if not quite the insanity of some of their actions as an insurgency. So do we want to deal any deal with them tghat involved releasing any money, or do we want them to collapse - and perhaps create a vacuum filled with angry terror groups? Apparently, Government opinion is divided, with Sunak favouring a hard line - no deals, total sanctions - and Raab and Wallace favouring a stick and carrot approach. Johnson's view is not yet clear. The US is potentially open-minded, but unlike Britain they have a hardline opposition waiting to call them soft on terror.

FWIW I think willingness to explore deals is sensible, coupled with observation of how things develop when the Taliban government finally sees the light of day (ETA September 1).

ydoethur said:

Nigelb said:

ydoethur said:

Nigelb said:

ydoethur said:

RochdalePioneers said:

ydoethur said:

RochdalePioneers said:

ydoethur said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Pulpstar said:

I don't get the "pleading" by Williamson over schoolkids to parents regarding Covid when the government has denied them a vaccine that would decrease transmissibilty over the summer hols ?????

Why what has he said? Perhaps he might want to consider his own "there is no risk, abolish the bubbles" command to schools.

He’s been reminding parents to get their children to do LFTs.

At least, in fairness, he hasn’t been quite as mad as John Swinney who wants to keep everyone in masks. He says there is a ‘compelling case’ but strangely I still haven’t seen any sign of that study on their effectiveness that he commissioned a year ago.

Considering that pox cases once again soared as schools went back it makes absolute sense to keep them in masks at least for an initial period. My son's high school has more buses than many small towns, bringing kids in from a wide catchment area. Its no wonder that schools are a brilliant transmission nexus.

So where is the actual evidence that they help? A study was commissioned last November to examine the case. Why has he not published it?

Masks are usually not worn correctly in any case, and they make teaching and learning very, very hard as well as being uncomfortable and unpleasant for the students.

Before he makes such a drastic decision he should be providing the evidence he has gathered. Why has has he not done so?

(If he has, please let me know because I’ve been trying to get hold of a copy for months.)

I'm not saying its a good option! Masks either work or they don't work. The consensus is that masks help stop the spread hence the mandatory use of masks we've all endured.

The alternative for schools isn't any better. Staff absence and kids not being taught at all as Covid rips back through schools and then back through the villages in their catchment area.

My point is that whether there is a consensus on this or not, he should have actual evidence to support his contention. This evidence was to be gathered as the result o of a proper scientific investigation that he - sensibly for once - commissioned ten months ago.

There should also be ample data given schools in England abandoned wearing masks while schools in Scotland retained them. Therefore giving two substantial samples to draw on.

So - where is it?

Again, if anyone does know where it is, please let me have a link because it’s really important on some work I’m doing for both my school and my union around the impact of mask wearing.

But if it hasn’t been published, all he’s doing is placebo bullshit. Trying to make people think Covid will be kept under control by wearing a piece of paper incorrectly isn’t really helpful given masks are in themselves such a very bad thing.

If I’ve time, I’ll try to dig something up for you. Ten months ago was of course prior to Delta, which will have changed all the calculations.

Regarding classroom spread, this is an interesting paper, which I posted a couple of days back:
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7035e2.htm
On May 25, 2021, the Marin County Department of Public Health (MCPH) was notified by an elementary school that on May 23, an unvaccinated teacher had reported receiving a positive test result for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. The teacher reported becoming symptomatic on May 19, but continued to work for 2 days before receiving a test on May 21. On occasion during this time, the teacher read aloud unmasked to the class despite school requirements to mask while indoors. Beginning May 23, additional cases of COVID-19 were reported among other staff members, students, parents, and siblings connected to the school. To characterize the outbreak, on May 26, MCPH initiated case investigation and contact tracing that included whole genome sequencing (WGS) of available specimens. A total of 27 cases were identified, including that of the teacher. During May 23–26, among the teacher’s 24 students, 22 students, all ineligible for vaccination because of age, received testing for SARS-CoV-2; 12 received positive test results. The attack rate in the two rows seated closest to the teacher’s desk was 80% (eight of 10) and was 28% (four of 14) in the three back rows…

(Note, if the school had been using lateral flow tests twice a week, this would likely have been avoided.)

Thanks. Although not perhaps especially helpful in a school context in the UK given our different testing regime.

One thing that does interest me in that report is how the link to unmasking is implicit, but only in one sentence and not followed up.

Difficult to see how, though.
It’s not like they could rerun the setting with an infected teacher wearing a mask.
Which is essentially the problem with developing the science on masks. You can demonstrate in lab setting how effective they are in reducing inhalation/exhalation of aerosol, but you can’t easily do real world tests other than look at population data - where confounding factors abound.

But the Scottish study was in a position to do exactly that. So why is it not available?

RochdalePioneers said:

Gardenwalker said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Gardenwalker said:

Bringing two topics together, Gove’s —- ?crisis —- is additionally worrying in that he’s about the only sentient member of Cabinet and certainly the only one who is thinking about the Union.

It may even be that the slow failure of Brexit is contributing to his mental health issues.

If Govey wants to go out on the razz fuelled by marching powder to embrace young gentlemen then good for him. He's been stuck in a lie for long enough, let the man live.

I am very much live and let live.

But you and I are both old enough in the tooth though to recognise mental health issues when we see them.

Define mental health. He may well be depressed as so many of us have been. Brown was a heavy user of the happy pills yet functionally seemed OK.

TBH the thing that really made me goggle is that its the early hours and he's off his tits wearing a suit. I'd love to wind the clock back to the previous day - at which point did his politics need to be wearing a suit on a Saturday turn into "lets go to O'Neills" then into "lets line them up" and then "aren't you a lovely pair of young men"

There is freedom. And there is Freedom. He's had too much of the latter.

Nigelb said:

ydoethur said:

Nigelb said:

ydoethur said:

Nigelb said:

ydoethur said:

RochdalePioneers said:

ydoethur said:

RochdalePioneers said:

ydoethur said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Pulpstar said:

I don't get the "pleading" by Williamson over schoolkids to parents regarding Covid when the government has denied them a vaccine that would decrease transmissibilty over the summer hols ?????

Why what has he said? Perhaps he might want to consider his own "there is no risk, abolish the bubbles" command to schools.

He’s been reminding parents to get their children to do LFTs.

At least, in fairness, he hasn’t been quite as mad as John Swinney who wants to keep everyone in masks. He says there is a ‘compelling case’ but strangely I still haven’t seen any sign of that study on their effectiveness that he commissioned a year ago.

Considering that pox cases once again soared as schools went back it makes absolute sense to keep them in masks at least for an initial period. My son's high school has more buses than many small towns, bringing kids in from a wide catchment area. Its no wonder that schools are a brilliant transmission nexus.

So where is the actual evidence that they help? A study was commissioned last November to examine the case. Why has he not published it?

Masks are usually not worn correctly in any case, and they make teaching and learning very, very hard as well as being uncomfortable and unpleasant for the students.

Before he makes such a drastic decision he should be providing the evidence he has gathered. Why has has he not done so?

(If he has, please let me know because I’ve been trying to get hold of a copy for months.)

I'm not saying its a good option! Masks either work or they don't work. The consensus is that masks help stop the spread hence the mandatory use of masks we've all endured.

The alternative for schools isn't any better. Staff absence and kids not being taught at all as Covid rips back through schools and then back through the villages in their catchment area.

My point is that whether there is a consensus on this or not, he should have actual evidence to support his contention. This evidence was to be gathered as the result o of a proper scientific investigation that he - sensibly for once - commissioned ten months ago.

There should also be ample data given schools in England abandoned wearing masks while schools in Scotland retained them. Therefore giving two substantial samples to draw on.

So - where is it?

Again, if anyone does know where it is, please let me have a link because it’s really important on some work I’m doing for both my school and my union around the impact of mask wearing.

But if it hasn’t been published, all he’s doing is placebo bullshit. Trying to make people think Covid will be kept under control by wearing a piece of paper incorrectly isn’t really helpful given masks are in themselves such a very bad thing.

If I’ve time, I’ll try to dig something up for you. Ten months ago was of course prior to Delta, which will have changed all the calculations.

Regarding classroom spread, this is an interesting paper, which I posted a couple of days back:
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7035e2.htm
On May 25, 2021, the Marin County Department of Public Health (MCPH) was notified by an elementary school that on May 23, an unvaccinated teacher had reported receiving a positive test result for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. The teacher reported becoming symptomatic on May 19, but continued to work for 2 days before receiving a test on May 21. On occasion during this time, the teacher read aloud unmasked to the class despite school requirements to mask while indoors. Beginning May 23, additional cases of COVID-19 were reported among other staff members, students, parents, and siblings connected to the school. To characterize the outbreak, on May 26, MCPH initiated case investigation and contact tracing that included whole genome sequencing (WGS) of available specimens. A total of 27 cases were identified, including that of the teacher. During May 23–26, among the teacher’s 24 students, 22 students, all ineligible for vaccination because of age, received testing for SARS-CoV-2; 12 received positive test results. The attack rate in the two rows seated closest to the teacher’s desk was 80% (eight of 10) and was 28% (four of 14) in the three back rows…

(Note, if the school had been using lateral flow tests twice a week, this would likely have been avoided.)

Thanks. Although not perhaps especially helpful in a school context in the UK given our different testing regime.

One thing that does interest me in that report is how the link to unmasking is implicit, but only in one sentence and not followed up.

Difficult to see how, though.
It’s not like they could rerun the setting with an infected teacher wearing a mask.
Which is essentially the problem with developing the science on masks. You can demonstrate in lab setting how effective they are in reducing inhalation/exhalation of aerosol, but you can’t easily do real world tests other than look at population data - where confounding factors abound.

But the Scottish study was in a position to do exactly that. So why is it not available?

I’ve no idea, as I haven’t read anything about it.
There’s a large meta study here, which demonstrates (limited) effectiveness for masks.
Recent stuff I’ve read suggests that very good ventilation (basically having all your windows open) has a greater effect.

Mass mask-wearing notably reduces COVID-19 transmission
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.16.21258817v1
… Investigating the inconsistency within epidemiological studies, we find that a commonly used proxy, government mask mandates, does not correlate with large increases in mask-wearing in our window of analysis. We thus analyse the effect of mask-wearing on transmission instead, drawing on several datasets covering 92 regions on 6 continents, including the largest survey of individual-level wearing behaviour (n=20 million) [7]. Using a hierarchical Bayesian model, we estimate the effect of both mask-wearing and mask-mandates on transmission by linking wearing levels (or mandates) to reported cases in each region, adjusting for mobility and non-pharmaceutical interventions.

We assess the robustness of our results in 123 experiments spanning 22 sensitivity analyses. Across these analyses, we find that an entire population wearing masks in public leads to a median reduction in the reproduction number R of 25.8%, with 95% of the medians between 22.2% and 30.9%. In our window of analysis, the median reduction in R associated with the wearing level observed in each region was 20.4% [2.0%, 23.3%]1. We do not find evidence that mandating mask-wearing reduces transmission. Our results suggest that mask-wearing is strongly affected by factors other than mandates...

Nigelb said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. B, big test now for many countries, especially the US. Go along with it and just accept China's land (sea) grab, or tell them to sod off?

The latter, politely.

Gardenwalker said:

Charles said:

kle4 said:

A united Ireland makes sense on a number of points, but occasionally people stumble into arguing for it on the basis that both current entities are in the same island so should be together or words to that effect, which I doubt they hold consistently for other islands like hispaniola, new guinea or Britain, as if islands are required to have unified politics.

The partition of Ireland is a historical anomaly, driven by decisions hundreds of years ago and then a political miscalculation by Carson combined with shameless manipulation and opportunism by Craig. It were better that it had never happened.

Unfortunately we are where we are - unless and until our brothers and sisters in the North chose differently they remain part of the United kingdom (which is why @Philip_Thompson ‘s approach - “good riddance” - is so inappropriate)

Everything is a historical anomaly, if you want to go back far enough.

Charles said:

Nigelb said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. B, big test now for many countries, especially the US. Go along with it and just accept China's land (sea) grab, or tell them to sod off?

The latter, politely.

You don’t dignify it by telling them to sod off

You just take a brand new aircraft carrier and sail through the disputed waters