I don't mind the zero covid crew. They have their own, internally logical, world view which prioritises stamping down on the spread of the disease at the expense of most other things. It is based on at least a version / interpretation of science and the facts. I don't agree with them but they are an important part of the conversation.
Likewise the libertarians / anti-maskers on the backbenches. They have their own internally logical world view which prioritises individual liberty and resisting the long arm of the state at the expense of controlling the spread of the virus. I don't agree with them either and think they're indulging somewhat in histrionics, but we need that voice in there too.
This is how government and public opinion gets the ability to triangulate and bring the public with it. What is more objectionable, and needs to be countered wherever it arises, is basic misinformation and pseudo-science. That includes anti-vax conspiracy theories but also the idea that the government has a cunning plan to lock us all down forever, or that this is some kind of eugenics experiment by the Tories, as well as a lot of the nonsense and moral panic around things like people gathering outdoors, or fist and elbow pumps (over a year since it became evident this thing mainly spreads in the air not from fomites)
I agree in principle, but the problem you have here is that both the 'zero covid ' and 'libertarian' visions have become deeply politicised and thrive on easy answers and misinformation; in their most extreme forms they are not that different to the mad conspiracy theories that circulate amongst parts of the population.
There may be some similarities in thinking now between libertarians and conspiracy Covid denialists but that doesn't mean they're the same thing at all.
I have argued here with people spreading conspiracies, claiming Ivermictin (sp?) works, that Covid isn't real etc . . . these people are crazy.
The libertarian thinking is in my humble opinion to recognise that Covid is real, not deny that, but to say that doesn't justify having restrictions. I fully accept and do not deny that may mean more people may die that would have without Covid, that is simply reality and it is something we can live with.
The denialists and the libertarians both want no restrictions, but for very different reasons.
....we can live with dying?....
shome mishtake shurely.
No mistake. We all live with death. Death is a part of life.
I don't mind the zero covid crew. They have their own, internally logical, world view which prioritises stamping down on the spread of the disease at the expense of most other things. It is based on at least a version / interpretation of science and the facts. I don't agree with them but they are an important part of the conversation.
Likewise the libertarians / anti-maskers on the backbenches. They have their own internally logical world view which prioritises individual liberty and resisting the long arm of the state at the expense of controlling the spread of the virus. I don't agree with them either and think they're indulging somewhat in histrionics, but we need that voice in there too.
This is how government and public opinion gets the ability to triangulate and bring the public with it. What is more objectionable, and needs to be countered wherever it arises, is basic misinformation and pseudo-science. That includes anti-vax conspiracy theories but also the idea that the government has a cunning plan to lock us all down forever, or that this is some kind of eugenics experiment by the Tories, as well as a lot of the nonsense and moral panic around things like people gathering outdoors, or fist and elbow pumps (over a year since it became evident this thing mainly spreads in the air not from fomites)
I agree in principle, but the problem you have here is that both the 'zero covid ' and 'libertarian' visions have become deeply politicised and thrive on easy answers and misinformation; in their most extreme forms they are not that different to the mad conspiracy theories that circulate amongst parts of the population.
There may be some similarities in thinking now between libertarians and conspiracy Covid denialists but that doesn't mean they're the same thing at all.
I have argued here with people spreading conspiracies, claiming Ivermictin (sp?) works, that Covid isn't real etc . . . these people are crazy.
The libertarian thinking is in my humble opinion to recognise that Covid is real, not deny that, but to say that doesn't justify having restrictions. I fully accept and do not deny that may mean more people may die that would have without Covid, that is simply reality and it is something we can live with.
The denialists and the libertarians both want no restrictions, but for very different reasons.
....we can live with dying?....
shome mishtake shurely.
No mistake. We all live with death. Death is a part of life.
You save those profound wee aphorisms from Christmas crackers I see.
As I recall it, life is a sexually transmitted, terminal condition.
Have you lot not watched the documentary called The Lion King? It's all explained there.
This fits in with my pretty close observations of the scene. People are talking about the election in shops and win or lose you get the firm impression the Lib Dems are doing well, borne out by the betting which still has them coming in well. However anything can happen, bad weather on polling day, a Labour win tomorrow to stiffen their vote, a Conservative hard campaign in the last week, many factors at play.
The media seem to be in full lock everyone down mood today and apart from undermining thousands of small businesses at their busiest time of the year they will only be content when everyone is kept at home
Then when they succeed they will be asking why is the economy tanking and it is time to get things back to normal
Jenny Harries' unguarded comments on Monday were absolutely stupid: she has probably cost the hospitality trade several millions of pounds, and possibly thousands of jobs, just by opening her mouth. Boris and Javid's attempts to roll it back will probably only have had a limited effect, judging by the anecdotal evidence.
I think that's overegging it.
I expect those who've been spooked would surely be those who were already guarded and easily spooked and so probably weren't going to be engaged much with hospitality anyway.
I expect those who were keen on hospitality would quite rightly be taking her comments with the pinch of salt they very much deserve.
For what it's worth: the curry house was empty last night when I went with a couple of mates.
How busy would it normally be on a cold Tuesday night in November?
Radio Scotland phone in has been fun this morning.
Callers flat out refusing to cancel any Christmas plans, asking how many more variants there will be and whether this will the case every Christmas for evermore.
Virologist comes on and responds with zero-covid strategy: "we must stop this variant in its tracks".
"We should not learn to live with it. We must eradicate it now"
To which the next question should be how do you do that? And drill the person down to he turns silent at which point the interviewer should say "so that would be impossible"...
Presenters response was to comment that it showed how misguided many callers were.
The Groupthink is strong that "something must be done, this is something, so this must be done".
To even suggest that death is a part of the circle of life and not to be prevented at all costs is now viewed as a monstrous suggestion by some people.
You don't think a thousand extra deaths a week, many of them avoidable, is enough?
I don't think its too many.
Most deaths are either the unvaccinated who can own their own choices, or people who are very vulnerable and could die from the common cold or flu or anything else.
NPIs made sense pre-PIs, not anymore. If a thousand 'extra' deaths is the 'new normal' then that's the new normal and that's what we have to live with, though I'm sceptical that excess deaths actually are a thousand a week.
You seemed concerned about people drowning in the channel in far smaller numbers.
They're healthy young people dying a horrible and preventable death and there's a simple solution to stop it happening that doesn't restrict the rights of anyone living here.
So you're a "zero crossings" believer then? Well, good luck with that.
I think crossings should be made safely and legally via humane routes, via proper planes or boats and not dinghies.
If anyone who crosses in a dinghy is instantly deported to a third party nation like Rwanda then the dinghies would stop overnight.
We should then offer MORE asylum to more people, but via proper and safe routes not via people smugglers.
It's touching when your naivety is so openly on display. You can't completely stop people entering the country illegally, even with the policy you describe. Oh you might be able to reduce it at a certain cost, but dinghies and stowaways and overstaying visas and even people walking across the Irish border will still happen. And sometimes people will die in the attempt. You can't legislate it away, you can't public awareness it away. Zero illegal immigration is a myth.
People don't drown in the sea if they overstay visas, people don't die walking across the border, people don't die if they've got here on a plane. I don't care about any of that, I'm OK with that.
I don't care if we don't have zero illegal immigration. People smugglers on a deadly crossing is a different matter.
It'll still happen though. People get through barbed wire, cross raging torrents, choose longer routes etc to avoid being caught. The error you're making is that you think the consequences of being caught will deter everyone. It's the same "hang 'em high" error that headchoppers and thief danglers make. They think perpetrators focus on the outcome if they're apprehended. But we know that very often people don't think they will get caught at all. That's why people slow down for speed cameras and then speed up when they think they're clear.
People will still board dinghies elsewhere no matter how diligently you patrol Dover or how assiduously you punish them when they're caught. And perhaps a higher percentage of them will drown trying from Cherbourg than Calais, who knows?
Except this has already worked in the real world.
"Worked" as in zero migrants? If you are talking about Australia then no, no it hasn't.
Indeed the rhetoric on this from Australia doesn't match reality.
Tens of thousands are on Bridging Visa E (which permits employment) in Australian communities, and only a few hundred on Nauru.
How did those who've got such a visa get into Australia though? Was it via boats, or planes, or some other means?
Nobody surely, least of all me, is suggesting that nobody should be here. Its the method to get here that's under discussion.
Jim Pickard @PickardJE · 1h the number of people wearing masks in shops and on public transport seems to be…about the same as last week
Anecdotally in Waitrose on Tuesday there were more wearing masks than last week, especially among the staff (the ones who weren't, never have through exemptions). Not 100% though. If the rumours of the slight increases in transmissability for omicron, and slight decline in effectiveness hold out to be right, and numbers don't increase rapidly, I think we may see an earlier release of the England only mask mandate.
The latest rumours I'd seen were that Omicron is less intrinsically transmissible, but is less covered by the vaccine - net result it transmits more compared to delta which would spread more in a naive population but not in a vaccinated one.
Frankly given the current mix of high delta cases and relatively low initial seeding of omicron, hard to see how we're going to get noticible impact on cases from it until well in to next year.
This fits in with my pretty close observations of the scene. People are talking about the election in shops and win or lose you get the firm impression the Lib Dems are doing well, borne out by the betting which still has them coming in well. However anything can happen, bad weather on polling day, a Labour win tomorrow to stiffen their vote, a Conservative hard campaign in the last week, many factors at play.
The media seem to be in full lock everyone down mood today and apart from undermining thousands of small businesses at their busiest time of the year they will only be content when everyone is kept at home
Then when they succeed they will be asking why is the economy tanking and it is time to get things back to normal
Jenny Harries' unguarded comments on Monday were absolutely stupid: she has probably cost the hospitality trade several millions of pounds, and possibly thousands of jobs, just by opening her mouth. Boris and Javid's attempts to roll it back will probably only have had a limited effect, judging by the anecdotal evidence.
This is the problem with scientists, they don't necessarily think through the end consequences of what they propose, only the headlines. Less socialising means less cases, for sure and that's what she wants. Yet less socialising means businesses struggling, unemployment going up and just a general bit of misery. Those are consequences of what she said that simply won't even have entered the equation for her which will have been, how can we make cases go down.
It's also something the government needs to clamp down on, there's an agreed position and all advisors sing from the same hymn sheet. If they disagree then make the case to the politicians and get the agreed position changed.
One of the reasons I think she has gone rogue is because Javid is a lot tougher than Hancock and probably is less inclined to social measures like lockdowns and distancing.
I don't mind the zero covid crew. They have their own, internally logical, world view which prioritises stamping down on the spread of the disease at the expense of most other things. It is based on at least a version / interpretation of science and the facts. I don't agree with them but they are an important part of the conversation.
Likewise the libertarians / anti-maskers on the backbenches. They have their own internally logical world view which prioritises individual liberty and resisting the long arm of the state at the expense of controlling the spread of the virus. I don't agree with them either and think they're indulging somewhat in histrionics, but we need that voice in there too.
This is how government and public opinion gets the ability to triangulate and bring the public with it. What is more objectionable, and needs to be countered wherever it arises, is basic misinformation and pseudo-science. That includes anti-vax conspiracy theories but also the idea that the government has a cunning plan to lock us all down forever, or that this is some kind of eugenics experiment by the Tories, as well as a lot of the nonsense and moral panic around things like people gathering outdoors, or fist and elbow pumps (over a year since it became evident this thing mainly spreads in the air not from fomites)
I agree in principle, but the problem you have here is that both the 'zero covid ' and 'libertarian' visions have become deeply politicised and thrive on easy answers and misinformation; in their most extreme forms they are not that different to the mad conspiracy theories that circulate amongst parts of the population.
There may be some similarities in thinking now between libertarians and conspiracy Covid denialists but that doesn't mean they're the same thing at all.
I have argued here with people spreading conspiracies, claiming Ivermictin (sp?) works, that Covid isn't real etc . . . these people are crazy.
The libertarian thinking is in my humble opinion to recognise that Covid is real, not deny that, but to say that doesn't justify having restrictions. I fully accept and do not deny that may mean more people may die that would have without Covid, that is simply reality and it is something we can live with.
The denialists and the libertarians both want no restrictions, but for very different reasons.
....we can live with dying?....
shome mishtake shurely.
No mistake. We all live with death. Death is a part of life.
I don't mind the zero covid crew. They have their own, internally logical, world view which prioritises stamping down on the spread of the disease at the expense of most other things. It is based on at least a version / interpretation of science and the facts. I don't agree with them but they are an important part of the conversation.
Likewise the libertarians / anti-maskers on the backbenches. They have their own internally logical world view which prioritises individual liberty and resisting the long arm of the state at the expense of controlling the spread of the virus. I don't agree with them either and think they're indulging somewhat in histrionics, but we need that voice in there too.
This is how government and public opinion gets the ability to triangulate and bring the public with it. What is more objectionable, and needs to be countered wherever it arises, is basic misinformation and pseudo-science. That includes anti-vax conspiracy theories but also the idea that the government has a cunning plan to lock us all down forever, or that this is some kind of eugenics experiment by the Tories, as well as a lot of the nonsense and moral panic around things like people gathering outdoors, or fist and elbow pumps (over a year since it became evident this thing mainly spreads in the air not from fomites)
I agree in principle, but the problem you have here is that both the 'zero covid ' and 'libertarian' visions have become deeply politicised and thrive on easy answers and misinformation; in their most extreme forms they are not that different to the mad conspiracy theories that circulate amongst parts of the population.
There may be some similarities in thinking now between libertarians and conspiracy Covid denialists but that doesn't mean they're the same thing at all.
I have argued here with people spreading conspiracies, claiming Ivermictin (sp?) works, that Covid isn't real etc . . . these people are crazy.
The libertarian thinking is in my humble opinion to recognise that Covid is real, not deny that, but to say that doesn't justify having restrictions. I fully accept and do not deny that may mean more people may die that would have without Covid, that is simply reality and it is something we can live with.
The denialists and the libertarians both want no restrictions, but for very different reasons.
....we can live with dying?....
shome mishtake shurely.
No mistake. We all live with death. Death is a part of life.
You save those profound wee aphorisms from Christmas crackers I see.
As I recall it, life is a sexually transmitted, terminal condition.
Children are the worst sexually transmitted disease.
Went to see my GP this morning because of headaches. Getting an "emergency" CT scan some time before Christmas and advised to go private for my respiratory issues because nothing is going to happen soon. Told by the GP that the waiting time for gynaecology (not for me, of course) is now 2 years. He sees no prospects of anything improving in the foreseeable.
My GP is an excellent chap and expressed frustration at how many times he is now recommending private health care. He said he is a strong believer in the NHS but the long term underfunding (in his view) has simply meant it cannot cope with something like Covid and the reductions in capacity that the safeguards bring about.
Pretty sobering way to start the day.
NHS, of course, is devolved to the Scottish Govt in your part of the world. Perhaps if they spent less on ramping up salaries, providing "free" baby-boxes, free bikes, free tuition fees, and various other perks for the middle-classes, there'd be a bit more for front-line health provision.
But, as we know, Nicola is politically bullet-proof, and nothing much will change however bad services get.
Rant over!
Her Teflon shielding is starting to wear a little thin. Interesting article in the Courier today be Jim Spence: "Is independence a busted flush?" The response to their virtual conference has been pretty negative well beyond the usual suspects (like me). Subscription only unfortunately.
Spence is of the Albanian persuasion isn’t he? I suspect he would prefer Indy to be a busted flush rather than the woke hell of cops dancing at Pride and non binary pronouns that inhabits his fevered imaginings.
Albanian?
= Alba
Oh, I thought that they were the ones who really wanted independence as opposed to those wanting to make a living campaigning about it.
Your insights into the motivations of indy supporters are of course renowned for their clear sighted objectivity.
Labour were miles ahead of the LDs at the last election in North Shropshire. Why are they almost certainly going to come third this time? Seems like an interesting question to me.
The Labour leadership was branded “pathetic and childish” after it issued an invite for a drinks party jointly hosted by Sir Keir Starmer and his Shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves - but not his deputy Angela Rayner
Deep divisions have emerged at the top of the Labour party at a time when speculation is rife over a fresh civil war within party ranks.
Labour source: “It’s idiotic, pathetic and childish to send that invite out today, in that way, to 200 lobby hacks hungry for gossip.”
From my relatives in Gauteng, South Africa: "The younger generation seem to be kicking against the vaccination especially since the government has hinted that they are considering making it mandatory..and that certain events and places can only be accessed with a full vaccination certificate".
I don't mind the zero covid crew. They have their own, internally logical, world view which prioritises stamping down on the spread of the disease at the expense of most other things. It is based on at least a version / interpretation of science and the facts. I don't agree with them but they are an important part of the conversation.
Likewise the libertarians / anti-maskers on the backbenches. They have their own internally logical world view which prioritises individual liberty and resisting the long arm of the state at the expense of controlling the spread of the virus. I don't agree with them either and think they're indulging somewhat in histrionics, but we need that voice in there too.
This is how government and public opinion gets the ability to triangulate and bring the public with it. What is more objectionable, and needs to be countered wherever it arises, is basic misinformation and pseudo-science. That includes anti-vax conspiracy theories but also the idea that the government has a cunning plan to lock us all down forever, or that this is some kind of eugenics experiment by the Tories, as well as a lot of the nonsense and moral panic around things like people gathering outdoors, or fist and elbow pumps (over a year since it became evident this thing mainly spreads in the air not from fomites)
I agree in principle, but the problem you have here is that both the 'zero covid ' and 'libertarian' visions have become deeply politicised and thrive on easy answers and misinformation; in their most extreme forms they are not that different to the mad conspiracy theories that circulate amongst parts of the population.
Edit - this is a good twitter account of a zero covid fundamentalist (probably a parody, but who knows)
Jim Pickard @PickardJE · 1h the number of people wearing masks in shops and on public transport seems to be…about the same as last week
Anecdotally in Waitrose on Tuesday there were more wearing masks than last week, especially among the staff (the ones who weren't, never have through exemptions). Not 100% though. If the rumours of the slight increases in transmissability for omicron, and slight decline in effectiveness hold out to be right, and numbers don't increase rapidly, I think we may see an earlier release of the England only mask mandate.
The latest rumours I'd seen were that Omicron is less intrinsically transmissible, but is less covered by the vaccine - net result it transmits more compared to delta which would spread more in a naive population but not in a vaccinated one.
Frankly given the current mix of high delta cases and relatively low initial seeding of omicron, hard to see how we're going to get noticible impact on cases from it until well in to next year.
Exactly, that's my reading of the numbers: nobody is denying that it's an uncertain future threat but there are only 13 (thirteen) confirmed cases in England currently, a fortnight out from the END of the Christmas works party season. What do people expect the prevalence to be by 18 December? This point needs to be made much more strongly.
Email just arrived from Lib Dem HQ. Nice festive title: "It's beginning to feel a lot like Chesham"
Hubris. I wonder whether the new Conservative MP will be wishing his opponents a Merry Nemesis and a Happy New Year.
The rest of the email wasn't hubris, just classic Lib Dem campaigning. Essentially:
- It's excitingly close - The Tories are in trouble and people are saying nice things to us on the doorstep - However, it won't be easy and we need to you to pour into the constituency to help close the gap
I have had 2 phone calls this morning thanking me for already going and asking me to go again. Also telling me to ask all my Lib Dem contacts to go.
Labour were miles ahead of the LDs at the last election in North Shropshire. Why are they almost certainly going to come third this time? Seems like an interesting question to me.
I think there has been an interesting de facto deal which (I believe) has never even been discussed privately - the LibDems are standing in Bexley but not trying very hard, and Labour is standing in North Shropshire but likewise not trying very hard. The Greens don't seem to be playing along, perhaps understandably as there isn't a third seat where they are being left to lead the charge, but they will annoy non-Tories generally if their vote happens to be larger than a Tory majority.
I've been among the sceptics about the Tories losing either seat, so this feels like good news.
Labour were miles ahead of the LDs at the last election in North Shropshire. Why are they almost certainly going to come third this time? Seems like an interesting question to me.
Because they aren't campaigning. Like the LD's in B+OS by tacit agreement?
Radio Scotland phone in has been fun this morning.
Callers flat out refusing to cancel any Christmas plans, asking how many more variants there will be and whether this will the case every Christmas for evermore.
Virologist comes on and responds with zero-covid strategy: "we must stop this variant in its tracks".
"We should not learn to live with it. We must eradicate it now"
To which the next question should be how do you do that? And drill the person down to he turns silent at which point the interviewer should say "so that would be impossible"...
Presenters response was to comment that it showed how misguided many callers were.
The Groupthink is strong that "something must be done, this is something, so this must be done".
To even suggest that death is a part of the circle of life and not to be prevented at all costs is now viewed as a monstrous suggestion by some people.
You don't think a thousand extra deaths a week, many of them avoidable, is enough?
I don't think its too many.
Most deaths are either the unvaccinated who can own their own choices, or people who are very vulnerable and could die from the common cold or flu or anything else.
NPIs made sense pre-PIs, not anymore. If a thousand 'extra' deaths is the 'new normal' then that's the new normal and that's what we have to live with, though I'm sceptical that excess deaths actually are a thousand a week.
You seemed concerned about people drowning in the channel in far smaller numbers.
They're healthy young people dying a horrible and preventable death and there's a simple solution to stop it happening that doesn't restrict the rights of anyone living here.
So you're a "zero crossings" believer then? Well, good luck with that.
I think crossings should be made safely and legally via humane routes, via proper planes or boats and not dinghies.
If anyone who crosses in a dinghy is instantly deported to a third party nation like Rwanda then the dinghies would stop overnight.
We should then offer MORE asylum to more people, but via proper and safe routes not via people smugglers.
It's touching when your naivety is so openly on display. You can't completely stop people entering the country illegally, even with the policy you describe. Oh you might be able to reduce it at a certain cost, but dinghies and stowaways and overstaying visas and even people walking across the Irish border will still happen. And sometimes people will die in the attempt. You can't legislate it away, you can't public awareness it away. Zero illegal immigration is a myth.
People don't drown in the sea if they overstay visas, people don't die walking across the border, people don't die if they've got here on a plane. I don't care about any of that, I'm OK with that.
I don't care if we don't have zero illegal immigration. People smugglers on a deadly crossing is a different matter.
It'll still happen though. People get through barbed wire, cross raging torrents, choose longer routes etc to avoid being caught. The error you're making is that you think the consequences of being caught will deter everyone. It's the same "hang 'em high" error that headchoppers and thief danglers make. They think perpetrators focus on the outcome if they're apprehended. But we know that very often people don't think they will get caught at all. That's why people slow down for speed cameras and then speed up when they think they're clear.
People will still board dinghies elsewhere no matter how diligently you patrol Dover or how assiduously you punish them when they're caught. And perhaps a higher percentage of them will drown trying from Cherbourg than Calais, who knows?
Except this has already worked in the real world.
"Worked" as in zero migrants? If you are talking about Australia then no, no it hasn't.
Indeed the rhetoric on this from Australia doesn't match reality.
Tens of thousands are on Bridging Visa E (which permits employment) in Australian communities, and only a few hundred on Nauru.
How did those who've got such a visa get into Australia though? Was it via boats, or planes, or some other means?
Nobody surely, least of all me, is suggesting that nobody should be here. Its the method to get here that's under discussion.
A mixture. About half of asylum seekers go by plane and half by boat.
Even a significant proportion of those offshored get Bridging Visa E.
This fits in with my pretty close observations of the scene. People are talking about the election in shops and win or lose you get the firm impression the Lib Dems are doing well, borne out by the betting which still has them coming in well. However anything can happen, bad weather on polling day, a Labour win tomorrow to stiffen their vote, a Conservative hard campaign in the last week, many factors at play.
The media seem to be in full lock everyone down mood today and apart from undermining thousands of small businesses at their busiest time of the year they will only be content when everyone is kept at home
Then when they succeed they will be asking why is the economy tanking and it is time to get things back to normal
Jenny Harries' unguarded comments on Monday were absolutely stupid: she has probably cost the hospitality trade several millions of pounds, and possibly thousands of jobs, just by opening her mouth. Boris and Javid's attempts to roll it back will probably only have had a limited effect, judging by the anecdotal evidence.
I'd just like consistency. Either the government are Following the Science or they are making the decisions where the science is only one consideration. We've been told both depending on circumstances.
Thats fair criticism. However I think context is important. Back in March 2020 there was only one consideration - it looked like the NHS was in danger of complete collapse in the style of northern Italy. The scientists said that we needed to lock down, and the government did so. This was unprecedented, and the government used the scientific advice to provide the reason/cover for doing such an extreme measure. Later on we had options, as the NHS was no longer in imminent danger of collapse, but the best way ahead was no longer so clear cut. We could have tried for zero covid. We could have just said open up, and damn the consequences. Or anything in between. At this stage there was a need for balance of other pressures. The immediate crisis was past, and now other dangers loomed, such as the danger of economic collapse and business failure. If you ask an epidemiologist what to do, its not a surprise that many favour doing everything possible to reduce illness and death. But they are not required to consider what happens if you keep punitive restrictions, businesses fail and consequences ensue. At this point, its no longer possible to just follow the science. Which science? Economics is also (barely) a science.
So you are both right, in that it has been cynically deployed, but it is understandable too.
Anna Mikhailova @AVMikhailova · 20m NEW: Parliament’s Standards Commissioner launches investigation into Jacob Rees-Mogg
Somehow priceless, considering his nineteenth-century gentleman's persona. After Covid and the government's potentially lethal infringements on democracy in the Police Bill, finally the week brings some good news.
Next should be the horrifically fascinating Trump-Farage spectacle, shown tonight. I'm not sure what is, but perhaps it's that these two are now such familiarly contemptible characters, so easy to laugh at, that they've almost become relaxing to watch in their dangerousness.
Added to which ofcourse, Farage always genuine antennae for what's politically relevant, meaning the grimly amusing spectacle will probably include something or other that has some genuine political significance, at least in the US.
Went to see my GP this morning because of headaches. Getting an "emergency" CT scan some time before Christmas and advised to go private for my respiratory issues because nothing is going to happen soon. Told by the GP that the waiting time for gynaecology (not for me, of course) is now 2 years. He sees no prospects of anything improving in the foreseeable.
My GP is an excellent chap and expressed frustration at how many times he is now recommending private health care. He said he is a strong believer in the NHS but the long term underfunding (in his view) has simply meant it cannot cope with something like Covid and the reductions in capacity that the safeguards bring about.
Pretty sobering way to start the day.
Serious Q: How do the protestations about "there is no capacity" from the Drs' organisations match up with the reality that huge numbers of GPs work part time?
Radio Scotland phone in has been fun this morning.
Callers flat out refusing to cancel any Christmas plans, asking how many more variants there will be and whether this will the case every Christmas for evermore.
Virologist comes on and responds with zero-covid strategy: "we must stop this variant in its tracks".
"We should not learn to live with it. We must eradicate it now"
To which the next question should be how do you do that? And drill the person down to he turns silent at which point the interviewer should say "so that would be impossible"...
Presenters response was to comment that it showed how misguided many callers were.
The Groupthink is strong that "something must be done, this is something, so this must be done".
To even suggest that death is a part of the circle of life and not to be prevented at all costs is now viewed as a monstrous suggestion by some people.
You don't think a thousand extra deaths a week, many of them avoidable, is enough?
I don't think its too many.
Most deaths are either the unvaccinated who can own their own choices, or people who are very vulnerable and could die from the common cold or flu or anything else.
NPIs made sense pre-PIs, not anymore. If a thousand 'extra' deaths is the 'new normal' then that's the new normal and that's what we have to live with, though I'm sceptical that excess deaths actually are a thousand a week.
You seemed concerned about people drowning in the channel in far smaller numbers.
They're healthy young people dying a horrible and preventable death and there's a simple solution to stop it happening that doesn't restrict the rights of anyone living here.
So you're a "zero crossings" believer then? Well, good luck with that.
I think crossings should be made safely and legally via humane routes, via proper planes or boats and not dinghies.
If anyone who crosses in a dinghy is instantly deported to a third party nation like Rwanda then the dinghies would stop overnight.
We should then offer MORE asylum to more people, but via proper and safe routes not via people smugglers.
It's touching when your naivety is so openly on display. You can't completely stop people entering the country illegally, even with the policy you describe. Oh you might be able to reduce it at a certain cost, but dinghies and stowaways and overstaying visas and even people walking across the Irish border will still happen. And sometimes people will die in the attempt. You can't legislate it away, you can't public awareness it away. Zero illegal immigration is a myth.
People don't drown in the sea if they overstay visas, people don't die walking across the border, people don't die if they've got here on a plane. I don't care about any of that, I'm OK with that.
I don't care if we don't have zero illegal immigration. People smugglers on a deadly crossing is a different matter.
It'll still happen though. People get through barbed wire, cross raging torrents, choose longer routes etc to avoid being caught. The error you're making is that you think the consequences of being caught will deter everyone. It's the same "hang 'em high" error that headchoppers and thief danglers make. They think perpetrators focus on the outcome if they're apprehended. But we know that very often people don't think they will get caught at all. That's why people slow down for speed cameras and then speed up when they think they're clear.
People will still board dinghies elsewhere no matter how diligently you patrol Dover or how assiduously you punish them when they're caught. And perhaps a higher percentage of them will drown trying from Cherbourg than Calais, who knows?
Except this has already worked in the real world.
"Worked" as in zero migrants? If you are talking about Australia then no, no it hasn't.
Indeed the rhetoric on this from Australia doesn't match reality.
Tens of thousands are on Bridging Visa E (which permits employment) in Australian communities, and only a few hundred on Nauru.
How did those who've got such a visa get into Australia though? Was it via boats, or planes, or some other means?
Nobody surely, least of all me, is suggesting that nobody should be here. Its the method to get here that's under discussion.
A mixture. About half of asylum seekers go by plane and half by boat.
Even a significant proportion of those offshored get Bridging Visa E.
Do you have a source on the number getting BVE via boats?
My understanding was that the vast bulk (if not nearly all) is from people who'd arrived via legal means then overstayed visas etc rather than arriving via boats.
The Labour leadership was branded “pathetic and childish” after it issued an invite for a drinks party jointly hosted by Sir Keir Starmer and his Shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves - but not his deputy Angela Rayner
Deep divisions have emerged at the top of the Labour party at a time when speculation is rife over a fresh civil war within party ranks.
Labour source: “It’s idiotic, pathetic and childish to send that invite out today, in that way, to 200 lobby hacks hungry for gossip.”
SKS really is a useless nonentity
Fantastic news that Labour aren't buckling to the zerocovidians and are hosting their Christmas party. I hope they all enjoy themselves and have a great night.
Went to see my GP this morning because of headaches. Getting an "emergency" CT scan some time before Christmas and advised to go private for my respiratory issues because nothing is going to happen soon. Told by the GP that the waiting time for gynaecology (not for me, of course) is now 2 years. He sees no prospects of anything improving in the foreseeable.
My GP is an excellent chap and expressed frustration at how many times he is now recommending private health care. He said he is a strong believer in the NHS but the long term underfunding (in his view) has simply meant it cannot cope with something like Covid and the reductions in capacity that the safeguards bring about.
Pretty sobering way to start the day.
Serious Q: How do the protestations about "there is no capacity" from the Drs' organisations match up with the reality that huge numbers of GPs work part time?
Went to see my GP this morning because of headaches. Getting an "emergency" CT scan some time before Christmas and advised to go private for my respiratory issues because nothing is going to happen soon. Told by the GP that the waiting time for gynaecology (not for me, of course) is now 2 years. He sees no prospects of anything improving in the foreseeable.
My GP is an excellent chap and expressed frustration at how many times he is now recommending private health care. He said he is a strong believer in the NHS but the long term underfunding (in his view) has simply meant it cannot cope with something like Covid and the reductions in capacity that the safeguards bring about.
Pretty sobering way to start the day.
Serious Q: How do the protestations about "there is no capacity" from the Drs' organisations match up with the reality that huge numbers of GPs work part time?
Perhaps we need a condition to require extra hours in time of need in the GP part time contract?
Quite a few will be parents with young children and others winding down en route to retirement. Others may be working privately in the rest of the working week. None of those change the underlying capacity.
There are also potential capacity constraints in terms of offices, support staff, and so on.
This fits in with my pretty close observations of the scene. People are talking about the election in shops and win or lose you get the firm impression the Lib Dems are doing well, borne out by the betting which still has them coming in well. However anything can happen, bad weather on polling day, a Labour win tomorrow to stiffen their vote, a Conservative hard campaign in the last week, many factors at play.
I think we can discount a Labour victory in Old Bexley & Sidcup tomorrow. This is one of the most Tory and most pro-Brexit seats in the London suburbs. The Tory share will probably be down by 15 to 20 percentage points though IMO, leaving them on perhaps around 45%.
Labour were miles ahead of the LDs at the last election in North Shropshire. Why are they almost certainly going to come third this time? Seems like an interesting question to me.
I think there has been an interesting de facto deal which (I believe) has never even been discussed privately - the LibDems are standing in Bexley but not trying very hard, and Labour is standing in North Shropshire but likewise not trying very hard. The Greens don't seem to be playing along, perhaps understandably as there isn't a third seat where they are being left to lead the charge, but they will annoy non-Tories generally if their vote happens to be larger than a Tory majority.
I've been among the sceptics about the Tories losing either seat, so this feels like good news.
Sunak's look to Johnson as the PM was saying there was no 'red flag' on a Treasury report on new hospitals looked a lot to me like 'why on earth is he lying on this one'.
I don't mind the zero covid crew. They have their own, internally logical, world view which prioritises stamping down on the spread of the disease at the expense of most other things. It is based on at least a version / interpretation of science and the facts. I don't agree with them but they are an important part of the conversation.
Likewise the libertarians / anti-maskers on the backbenches. They have their own internally logical world view which prioritises individual liberty and resisting the long arm of the state at the expense of controlling the spread of the virus. I don't agree with them either and think they're indulging somewhat in histrionics, but we need that voice in there too.
This is how government and public opinion gets the ability to triangulate and bring the public with it. What is more objectionable, and needs to be countered wherever it arises, is basic misinformation and pseudo-science. That includes anti-vax conspiracy theories but also the idea that the government has a cunning plan to lock us all down forever, or that this is some kind of eugenics experiment by the Tories, as well as a lot of the nonsense and moral panic around things like people gathering outdoors, or fist and elbow pumps (over a year since it became evident this thing mainly spreads in the air not from fomites)
I agree in principle, but the problem you have here is that both the 'zero covid ' and 'libertarian' visions have become deeply politicised and thrive on easy answers and misinformation; in their most extreme forms they are not that different to the mad conspiracy theories that circulate amongst parts of the population.
There may be some similarities in thinking now between libertarians and conspiracy Covid denialists but that doesn't mean they're the same thing at all.
I have argued here with people spreading conspiracies, claiming Ivermictin (sp?) works, that Covid isn't real etc . . . these people are crazy.
The libertarian thinking is in my humble opinion to recognise that Covid is real, not deny that, but to say that doesn't justify having restrictions. I fully accept and do not deny that may mean more people may die that would have without Covid, that is simply reality and it is something we can live with.
The denialists and the libertarians both want no restrictions, but for very different reasons.
....we can live with dying?....
shome mishtake shurely.
No mistake. We all live with death. Death is a part of life.
I don't mind the zero covid crew. They have their own, internally logical, world view which prioritises stamping down on the spread of the disease at the expense of most other things. It is based on at least a version / interpretation of science and the facts. I don't agree with them but they are an important part of the conversation.
Likewise the libertarians / anti-maskers on the backbenches. They have their own internally logical world view which prioritises individual liberty and resisting the long arm of the state at the expense of controlling the spread of the virus. I don't agree with them either and think they're indulging somewhat in histrionics, but we need that voice in there too.
This is how government and public opinion gets the ability to triangulate and bring the public with it. What is more objectionable, and needs to be countered wherever it arises, is basic misinformation and pseudo-science. That includes anti-vax conspiracy theories but also the idea that the government has a cunning plan to lock us all down forever, or that this is some kind of eugenics experiment by the Tories, as well as a lot of the nonsense and moral panic around things like people gathering outdoors, or fist and elbow pumps (over a year since it became evident this thing mainly spreads in the air not from fomites)
I agree in principle, but the problem you have here is that both the 'zero covid ' and 'libertarian' visions have become deeply politicised and thrive on easy answers and misinformation; in their most extreme forms they are not that different to the mad conspiracy theories that circulate amongst parts of the population.
There may be some similarities in thinking now between libertarians and conspiracy Covid denialists but that doesn't mean they're the same thing at all.
I have argued here with people spreading conspiracies, claiming Ivermictin (sp?) works, that Covid isn't real etc . . . these people are crazy.
The libertarian thinking is in my humble opinion to recognise that Covid is real, not deny that, but to say that doesn't justify having restrictions. I fully accept and do not deny that may mean more people may die that would have without Covid, that is simply reality and it is something we can live with.
The denialists and the libertarians both want no restrictions, but for very different reasons.
....we can live with dying?....
shome mishtake shurely.
No mistake. We all live with death. Death is a part of life.
You save those profound wee aphorisms from Christmas crackers I see.
As I recall it, life is a sexually transmitted, terminal condition.
Bit edgy, that, for a Christmas cracker, OKC. Can't see my Auntie Flo reading that out.
In this particular case, I think Harries just went rogue. I'm not at all certain that the government knew much about it until she piped up on Radio 4 and her comments went viral.
I'm not sure they've cut through particularly - the only references I've seen to it until today were on PB. I'm sure Twitter has had lots, but that's not the general public. Most people won't even know who Harries is.
The issue is more that the majority of the population has always been more prone to caution than the Government, and any new development like Omicron triggers the oo-er response. Sitting in Whitehall, it may make sense to say "Go forth and mingle, it's good for the economy and you're not at much risk if you're vaccinated", but if you're an individual you may well conclude that taking any non-trivial risk is not worth it for the sake of a curry. My neighbours (highly vulnerable elderly folk) have cancelled a family Christmas meal for that reason.
I'm not talking my book here - I've got a few people coming to dinner next week, and am going to someone else's dinner as well. As I'm triple-vaccinated I feel I can reasonably risk it. But I understand people who take a different view, and it's not because of Harries.
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh · 49s Starmer sounds onto something with this spin document that urges staff to call "refurbishment" of hospitals "new hospitals". Would be interesting to see the actual document #PMQs
In this particular case, I think Harries just went rogue. I'm not at all certain that the government knew much about it until she piped up on Radio 4 and her comments went viral.
I'm not sure they've cut through particularly - the only references I've seen to it until today were on PB. I'm sure Twitter has had lots, but that's not the general public. Most people won't even know who Harries is.
The issue is more that the majority of the population has always been more prone to caution than the Government, and any new development like Omicron triggers the oo-er response. Sitting in Whitehall, it may make sense to say "Go forth and mingle, it's good for the economy and you're not at much risk if you're vaccinated", but if you're an individual you may well conclude that taking any non-trivial risk is not worth it for the sake of a curry. My neighbours (highly vulnerable elderly folk) have cancelled a family Christmas meal for that reason.
I'm not talking my book here - I've got a few people coming to dinner next week, and am going to someone else's dinner as well. As I'm triple-vaccinated I feel I can reasonably risk it. But I understand people who take a different view, and it's not because of Harries.
Anna Mikhailova @AVMikhailova · 20m NEW: Parliament’s Standards Commissioner launches investigation into Jacob Rees-Mogg
Not just Mr R-M but also Mr Ross, though the situation is somewhat different (albeit no obvious reason for not being arsed to do his declarations properly).
Paper candidate pact between the Lib Dems and Labour is clearly happening.
Big problems for the Tories next round, IMHO
It's one thing in a couple of by elections. It won't happen in a GE
It did in 1997.
In 1997 Labour had a charismatic leader with a whole raft of fresh ideas and Cons were a divided factional rag bag of squabbling schoolboys.
In 2024 SKS is the complete opposite completely lacking in charisma and any policies and it is Labour via Starmer that is divided and factional ragbag of squabblers.
Paper candidate pact between the Lib Dems and Labour is clearly happening.
Big problems for the Tories next round, IMHO
It's one thing in a couple of by elections. It won't happen in a GE
It did in 1997.
In 1997 Labour had a charismatic leader with a whole raft of fresh ideas and Cons were a divided factional rag bag of squabbling schoolboys.
In 2024 SKS is the complete opposite completely lacking in charisma and any policies and it is Labour via Starmer that is divided and factional ragbag of squabblers.
I think ZeroCovidZoe lays out well something of what zero COVID entails. As am exercise in what this would take (I don't agree, but want to follow the logic as an exercise).
I don't think hers is the only Zero COVID approach, but to entertain this R needs to be held below 1 at almost all times and in all places globally. With Omicron coming in you'd want UK R down at 0.7, so you have headroom to see and respond to the Omicron uptick. I think that would close entertainment and re bubble schools at least in the UK as of today. This would then harshen as needed whenever R approached 1.
What I wonder is the aftermath of zero COVID... If you have successfully suppressed a pandemic respiratory virus, have you also suppressed all the seasonal viruses? The human lung would approximate to an unoccupied ecological niche. Like the human gut after all the natural bugs have been wiped out by antibiotics. What would fill that ecological niche? Would native flu come back from some far flung corner where it had been hiding. Would we be massively susceptible to another new introduced virus. Would we have to expose ourself to seasonal flu again - the lung equivalent of drinking Yakult after an antibiotics course?
Has any one in the Zero COVID people ever addressed this phase of their project? Because to be even a 'scientifically valid' choice at a basic level, then not leaving a load of unintended consequences to chance in the aftermath of zero COVID is achieved is an essential.
No, I think zero COVID would introduce a vast and dangerous vacuum in humanity's internal ecosystem and the refilling of that ecosystem would be unpredictable and chaotic. Even without considering the social implications one jot, a controlled and vaccinated push towards herd immunity and endemicity is far, far epidemiologically safer, I think.
The Labour leadership was branded “pathetic and childish” after it issued an invite for a drinks party jointly hosted by Sir Keir Starmer and his Shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves - but not his deputy Angela Rayner
Deep divisions have emerged at the top of the Labour party at a time when speculation is rife over a fresh civil war within party ranks.
Labour source: “It’s idiotic, pathetic and childish to send that invite out today, in that way, to 200 lobby hacks hungry for gossip.”
Contradicts most of the recent polling on the subject.
OTOH the Holyrood Vis reported at the same time are consistent. Though the data would not be independent of each other if you were working from the same sample, so that doesn't seem to mean much.
Paper candidate pact between the Lib Dems and Labour is clearly happening.
Big problems for the Tories next round, IMHO
It's one thing in a couple of by elections. It won't happen in a GE
It did in 1997.
In 1997 Labour had a charismatic leader with a whole raft of fresh ideas and Cons were a divided factional rag bag of squabbling schoolboys.
In 2024 SKS is the complete opposite completely lacking in charisma and any policies and it is Labour via Starmer that is divided and factional ragbag of squabblers.
Should we put you do as a maybe?
If you wish and I am
Maybe i will vote Green maybe I will vote Tory.
My MP will lose Chesterfield thats far less a maybe and more a nailed on certainty if Boris is still leader.
ON TOPIC. I’m already on Libdems at 3-1 for North Salop. I don’t think it’s certain to be a winning bet. But I have been told on this forum I have wasted my money because it will be such a big deal for Conservatives to lose such a safe seat.
But my point is I don’t think it is such a big deal. Think of it like the rugby or football, after an inept performance certainly football fans can boo manager or team, but the fans are not abandoning the club. So making comparisons what happens at general elections in a seat ignores how by elections are different, the voters know it’s about booing current manager or team performance not switching to a new club or seeing arch rivals take power.
So the more relevant guide here may not be where party’s are in latest polls but where Boris or governments satisfaction ratings are.
Since I placed the bet, to emphasise how weeks can be long time in politics, there has been a big development I think, how Reform might be emerging as a slick outfit good a siphoning away disgruntled, populist right wing, anti immigration voters who conservatives owned at last election.
Hmm. And a clear majority for independence parties, not even counting Labour pro-indy voters, in the Holyrood VIs too.
I wonder if Johnson's corruption and over-confident, indifferent arrogance earlier in the month cut through, combining with the economic bumps. That has a particular resonance across the border.
If the Policing Bill threats to legitimate protest also get cut-through, Scots could be even keener to shake off what is seen as arrogant and overbearing Westminster.
The Labour leadership was branded “pathetic and childish” after it issued an invite for a drinks party jointly hosted by Sir Keir Starmer and his Shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves - but not his deputy Angela Rayner
Deep divisions have emerged at the top of the Labour party at a time when speculation is rife over a fresh civil war within party ranks.
Labour source: “It’s idiotic, pathetic and childish to send that invite out today, in that way, to 200 lobby hacks hungry for gossip.”
SKS really is a useless nonentity
I think its the opposite. He's realised that he can bin off and ignore the left. Hence the removal of their remaining element from the Shadow Cabinet and the utter marginalisation of the deputy leader.
Before anyone says "how beastly" in reference to the leader's treatment of the deputy, think back to the conference where they tried to remove Tom Watson and failed miserably.
If the hard left don't want to vote Labour there are a plethora of splinter groups out there, including the laughably named "left unity".
Despite this, if we have a referendum in the near future No would win. The longer that wazzocks try to deny democracy and refuse a referendum the greater the chances that lead increases and beds in.
The Labour leadership was branded “pathetic and childish” after it issued an invite for a drinks party jointly hosted by Sir Keir Starmer and his Shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves - but not his deputy Angela Rayner
Deep divisions have emerged at the top of the Labour party at a time when speculation is rife over a fresh civil war within party ranks.
Labour source: “It’s idiotic, pathetic and childish to send that invite out today, in that way, to 200 lobby hacks hungry for gossip.”
SKS really is a useless nonentity
I think its the opposite. He's realised that he can bin off and ignore the left. Hence the removal of their remaining element from the Shadow Cabinet and the utter marginalisation of the deputy leader.
Before anyone says "how beastly" in reference to the leader's treatment of the deputy, think back to the conference where they tried to remove Tom Watson and failed miserably.
If the hard left don't want to vote Labour there are a plethora of splinter groups out there, including the laughably named "left unity".
He can't entirely ignore the left. It's not 1997. If he does, he'll lose.
This fits in with my pretty close observations of the scene. People are talking about the election in shops and win or lose you get the firm impression the Lib Dems are doing well, borne out by the betting which still has them coming in well. However anything can happen, bad weather on polling day, a Labour win tomorrow to stiffen their vote, a Conservative hard campaign in the last week, many factors at play.
The media seem to be in full lock everyone down mood today and apart from undermining thousands of small businesses at their busiest time of the year they will only be content when everyone is kept at home
Then when they succeed they will be asking why is the economy tanking and it is time to get things back to normal
Jenny Harries' unguarded comments on Monday were absolutely stupid: she has probably cost the hospitality trade several millions of pounds, and possibly thousands of jobs, just by opening her mouth. Boris and Javid's attempts to roll it back will probably only have had a limited effect, judging by the anecdotal evidence.
I think that's overegging it.
I expect those who've been spooked would surely be those who were already guarded and easily spooked and so probably weren't going to be engaged much with hospitality anyway.
I expect those who were keen on hospitality would quite rightly be taking her comments with the pinch of salt they very much deserve.
For what it's worth: the curry house was empty last night when I went with a couple of mates.
How busy would it normally be on a cold Tuesday night in November?
I didn't go to knit group on Monday. In the end only one person did, and they obviously didn't stay long in the pub on their own.
Pre-pandemic 8-12 people was the normal range.
I stayed away because I'm prioritising my trip to Bath, and I don't want to catch anything that would put that at risk beforehand. Completely bizarre, but necessary precaution in the circumstances, while we're still doing mass testing.
Our work decided a while ago to make the Christmas do online again. Pretty sure the lack of the novelty value will mean it suffers, but work were good about posting us all a drink beforehand last year so fingers crossed for small mercies.
If the Lib Dems do win then in my view it shows that Boris has stopped being pull-factor for the Tories and instead is holding them back. If I were a Conservative MP I would be starting very much to think of how to replace Boris with someone more appealing.
Governments do not go one forever and the Tories will lose at some point. Personally I think that the next election after having been in power for ~14 years is one that would not be bad for the Tories to lose so long as they keep it close. There is no Corbyn as the alternative now.
The Tories won a much bigger majority than anyone predicted, so shedding a few seats in by elections shouldn’t really be a big deal.
Despite this, if we have a referendum in the near future No would win. The longer that wazzocks try to deny democracy and refuse a referendum the greater the chances that lead increases and beds in.
That refusal hasn't happened formally yet, either - as opposed to on PB.
Hmm. And a clear majority for independence parties, not even counting Labour pro-indy voters, in the Holyrood VIs too.
I wonder if Johnson's corruption and over-confident, indifferent arrogance earlier in the month cut through, combining with the economic bumps. That has a particular resonance across the border.
If the Policing Bill threats to legitimate protest also get cut-through, Scots could be even keener to shake off what is seen as arrogant and overbearing Westminster.
What a shame. Eric Zemmours French presidential campaign is crashing and burning , right wing UK political commentators will be most upset .
The idea that he could win is laughable .
Is it? Do you have a link? I've not seen this news.
I did notice this morning that he's been drifting out on Smarkets, now tied with Le Pen again. But, like you, not seen any news other than him actually announcing that he will stand (which might/may already have brought his odds back in a bit).
The Labour leadership was branded “pathetic and childish” after it issued an invite for a drinks party jointly hosted by Sir Keir Starmer and his Shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves - but not his deputy Angela Rayner
Deep divisions have emerged at the top of the Labour party at a time when speculation is rife over a fresh civil war within party ranks.
Labour source: “It’s idiotic, pathetic and childish to send that invite out today, in that way, to 200 lobby hacks hungry for gossip.”
SKS really is a useless nonentity
I think its the opposite. He's realised that he can bin off and ignore the left. Hence the removal of their remaining element from the Shadow Cabinet and the utter marginalisation of the deputy leader.
Before anyone says "how beastly" in reference to the leader's treatment of the deputy, think back to the conference where they tried to remove Tom Watson and failed miserably.
If the hard left don't want to vote Labour there are a plethora of splinter groups out there, including the laughably named "left unity".
He can't entirely ignore the left. It's not 1997. If he does, he'll lose.
I think he can - "the left" are still foaming on about the Forde report, Jezbollah and witchhunts. Irrelevant to the real needs.
Hmm. And a clear majority for independence parties, not even counting Labour pro-indy voters, in the Holyrood VIs too.
Excited to hear HYUFD's analysis!
I am sure that HY will dispassionately analyse the data and reach the unavoidable conclusion that the more our PM makes a tit of himself and by extension our country, the less the Scots fancy sticking around?
In which case they are completely useless - Boris / no Tory leader is going to hold an election under the existing boundaries. And they don't change to October 23.
I can see the logic for May 23 but only because they are missing a fundamental fact.
The Labour leadership was branded “pathetic and childish” after it issued an invite for a drinks party jointly hosted by Sir Keir Starmer and his Shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves - but not his deputy Angela Rayner
Deep divisions have emerged at the top of the Labour party at a time when speculation is rife over a fresh civil war within party ranks.
Labour source: “It’s idiotic, pathetic and childish to send that invite out today, in that way, to 200 lobby hacks hungry for gossip.”
SKS really is a useless nonentity
I think its the opposite. He's realised that he can bin off and ignore the left. Hence the removal of their remaining element from the Shadow Cabinet and the utter marginalisation of the deputy leader.
Before anyone says "how beastly" in reference to the leader's treatment of the deputy, think back to the conference where they tried to remove Tom Watson and failed miserably.
If the hard left don't want to vote Labour there are a plethora of splinter groups out there, including the laughably named "left unity".
He can't entirely ignore the left. It's not 1997. If he does, he'll lose.
I think he can - "the left" are still foaming on about the Forde report, Jezbollah and witchhunts. Irrelevant to the real needs.
Rayner and Miliband represent a broad soft-left constituency in the party, rather than the further left. If he consciously antagonises them, as he appears to be doing in at least one case, and possibly at the behest of some of his team with links to a 1990's approach, he could have big trouble.
This fits in with my pretty close observations of the scene. People are talking about the election in shops and win or lose you get the firm impression the Lib Dems are doing well, borne out by the betting which still has them coming in well. However anything can happen, bad weather on polling day, a Labour win tomorrow to stiffen their vote, a Conservative hard campaign in the last week, many factors at play.
The media seem to be in full lock everyone down mood today and apart from undermining thousands of small businesses at their busiest time of the year they will only be content when everyone is kept at home
Then when they succeed they will be asking why is the economy tanking and it is time to get things back to normal
Jenny Harries' unguarded comments on Monday were absolutely stupid: she has probably cost the hospitality trade several millions of pounds, and possibly thousands of jobs, just by opening her mouth. Boris and Javid's attempts to roll it back will probably only have had a limited effect, judging by the anecdotal evidence.
I think that's overegging it.
I expect those who've been spooked would surely be those who were already guarded and easily spooked and so probably weren't going to be engaged much with hospitality anyway.
I expect those who were keen on hospitality would quite rightly be taking her comments with the pinch of salt they very much deserve.
For what it's worth: the curry house was empty last night when I went with a couple of mates.
How busy would it normally be on a cold Tuesday night in November?
I didn't go to knit group on Monday. In the end only one person did, and they obviously didn't stay long in the pub on their own.
Pre-pandemic 8-12 people was the normal range.
I stayed away because I'm prioritising my trip to Bath, and I don't want to catch anything that would put that at risk beforehand. Completely bizarre, but necessary precaution in the circumstances, while we're still doing mass testing.
Our work decided a while ago to make the Christmas do online again. Pretty sure the lack of the novelty value will mean it suffers, but work were good about posting us all a drink beforehand last year so fingers crossed for small mercies.
Zoom 'parties' are the very definition of the First Circle of Hell.
Work Christmas do cancelled. The Robert Smithson Law in action.
What reason was given for the do being cancelled? This is absolute madness.
The “changed environment”. Basically a lot of people started cancelling so they decided to rearrange it for spring or summer.
At least in that case they have effectively ben forced into it by the reluctance of their guests.
My question is why are the guests cancelling? Nothing has materially changed since this time last week, when presumably they were happy to attend? Omicron poses an uncertain threat for the future but not an immediate threat, as far as I can see. Works parties will be done and dusted within a fortnight, So the Christmas thing is a charade. Presumably the rational concern is for what might happen later in the winter?
This post didn’t have a like so I liked it as it deserved.
“ Omicron poses an uncertain threat for the future but not an immediate threat “.
Nothing has really changed has it? We should shop and party as intended before omicron still shouldn’t we?
The Labour leadership was branded “pathetic and childish” after it issued an invite for a drinks party jointly hosted by Sir Keir Starmer and his Shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves - but not his deputy Angela Rayner
Deep divisions have emerged at the top of the Labour party at a time when speculation is rife over a fresh civil war within party ranks.
Labour source: “It’s idiotic, pathetic and childish to send that invite out today, in that way, to 200 lobby hacks hungry for gossip.”
The Labour leadership was branded “pathetic and childish” after it issued an invite for a drinks party jointly hosted by Sir Keir Starmer and his Shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves - but not his deputy Angela Rayner
Deep divisions have emerged at the top of the Labour party at a time when speculation is rife over a fresh civil war within party ranks.
Labour source: “It’s idiotic, pathetic and childish to send that invite out today, in that way, to 200 lobby hacks hungry for gossip.”
SKS really is a useless nonentity
I think its the opposite. He's realised that he can bin off and ignore the left. Hence the removal of their remaining element from the Shadow Cabinet and the utter marginalisation of the deputy leader.
Before anyone says "how beastly" in reference to the leader's treatment of the deputy, think back to the conference where they tried to remove Tom Watson and failed miserably.
If the hard left don't want to vote Labour there are a plethora of splinter groups out there, including the laughably named "left unity".
He can't entirely ignore the left. It's not 1997. If he does, he'll lose.
I think he can - "the left" are still foaming on about the Forde report, Jezbollah and witchhunts. Irrelevant to the real needs.
Rayner and Miliband represent a broad soft-left constituency in the party. If he consciously antagonises them, as he appears to be doing in at least one case, and possibly at the behest of some of his team with links to a 1990's approach, he could have big trouble.
What's he doing to Ed? I agree that both are soft left, and frankly they aren't the target. The reality is that Rayner - a proud Blairite remember, just listen to her passionate description of how His government transformed her life chances - is the remaining totem of the hard left.
She seems to enjoy that role as she indulges in mouth-foaming rants about Tory scum which cause the Labour party considerable harm. That one speech alone was enough for Starmer to bin her off.
In which case they are completely useless - Boris / no Tory leader is going to hold an election under the existing boundaries. And they don't change to October 23.
I can see the logic for May 23 but only because they are missing a fundamental fact.
I agree with you. May 24 for me. Outsider late 23. May 23 - No.
In which case they are completely useless - Boris / no Tory leader is going to hold an election under the existing boundaries. And they don't change to October 23.
I can see the logic for May 23 but only because they are missing a fundamental fact.
I agree with you. May 24 for me. Outsider late 23. May 23 - No.
November 23 is my favourite - waiting until May 24 just adds extra risk that you wouldn't want to take.
The Labour leadership was branded “pathetic and childish” after it issued an invite for a drinks party jointly hosted by Sir Keir Starmer and his Shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves - but not his deputy Angela Rayner
Deep divisions have emerged at the top of the Labour party at a time when speculation is rife over a fresh civil war within party ranks.
Labour source: “It’s idiotic, pathetic and childish to send that invite out today, in that way, to 200 lobby hacks hungry for gossip.”
SKS really is a useless nonentity
I think its the opposite. He's realised that he can bin off and ignore the left. Hence the removal of their remaining element from the Shadow Cabinet and the utter marginalisation of the deputy leader.
Before anyone says "how beastly" in reference to the leader's treatment of the deputy, think back to the conference where they tried to remove Tom Watson and failed miserably.
If the hard left don't want to vote Labour there are a plethora of splinter groups out there, including the laughably named "left unity".
He can't entirely ignore the left. It's not 1997. If he does, he'll lose.
I think he can - "the left" are still foaming on about the Forde report, Jezbollah and witchhunts. Irrelevant to the real needs.
Rayner and Miliband represent a broad soft-left constituency in the party. If he consciously antagonises them, as he appears to be doing in at least one case, and possibly at the behest of some of his team with links to a 1990's approach, he could have big trouble.
What's he doing to Ed? I agree that both are soft left, and frankly they aren't the target. The reality is that Rayner - a proud Blairite remember, just listen to her passionate description of how His government transformed her life chances - is the remaining totem of the hard left.
She seems to enjoy that role as she indulges in mouth-foaming rants about Tory scum which cause the Labour party considerable harm. That one speech alone was enough for Starmer to bin her off.
The makeup of the party is such that Starmer just can't do that. The membership is further to the left than in the late 1990's, quite clearly, and she and Miliband link the left, the soft-left, and Starmer and the right of the party. He antagonises them at his party's, and electoral prospect's, peril.
SKS going on " did you have a Christmas Party last year" as his first question with everything else thats going on.
I think that was a bad call by Starmer. Be serious. Of course they had an illegal party last year. So what? I suspect most people did not fully comply with all the regulations in the last 18 months. Big deal.
The Labour leadership was branded “pathetic and childish” after it issued an invite for a drinks party jointly hosted by Sir Keir Starmer and his Shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves - but not his deputy Angela Rayner
Deep divisions have emerged at the top of the Labour party at a time when speculation is rife over a fresh civil war within party ranks.
Labour source: “It’s idiotic, pathetic and childish to send that invite out today, in that way, to 200 lobby hacks hungry for gossip.”
SKS really is a useless nonentity
I think its the opposite. He's realised that he can bin off and ignore the left. Hence the removal of their remaining element from the Shadow Cabinet and the utter marginalisation of the deputy leader.
Before anyone says "how beastly" in reference to the leader's treatment of the deputy, think back to the conference where they tried to remove Tom Watson and failed miserably.
If the hard left don't want to vote Labour there are a plethora of splinter groups out there, including the laughably named "left unity".
He can't entirely ignore the left. It's not 1997. If he does, he'll lose.
I think he can - "the left" are still foaming on about the Forde report, Jezbollah and witchhunts. Irrelevant to the real needs.
Rayner and Miliband represent a broad soft-left constituency in the party, rather than the further left. If he consciously antagonises them, as he appears to be doing in at least one case, and possibly at the behest of some of his team with links to a 1990's approach, he could have big trouble.
It's important Ed remains with Climate. He's becoming slightly totemic. If Ed's still there, and not sidelined, it means something.
Comments
Nobody surely, least of all me, is suggesting that nobody should be here. Its the method to get here that's under discussion.
Frankly given the current mix of high delta cases and relatively low initial seeding of omicron, hard to see how we're going to get noticible impact on cases from it until well in to next year.
It's also something the government needs to clamp down on, there's an agreed position and all advisors sing from the same hymn sheet. If they disagree then make the case to the politicians and get the agreed position changed.
One of the reasons I think she has gone rogue is because Javid is a lot tougher than Hancock and probably is less inclined to social measures like lockdowns and distancing.
IIRC the Lib Dems pulled this trick at the Witney by election.
Deep divisions have emerged at the top of the Labour party at a time when speculation is rife over a fresh civil war within party ranks.
Labour source: “It’s idiotic, pathetic and childish to send that invite out today, in that way, to 200 lobby hacks hungry for gossip.”
SKS really is a useless nonentity
I've been among the sceptics about the Tories losing either seat, so this feels like good news.
Even a significant proportion of those offshored get Bridging Visa E.
Later on we had options, as the NHS was no longer in imminent danger of collapse, but the best way ahead was no longer so clear cut. We could have tried for zero covid. We could have just said open up, and damn the consequences. Or anything in between. At this stage there was a need for balance of other pressures. The immediate crisis was past, and now other dangers loomed, such as the danger of economic collapse and business failure. If you ask an epidemiologist what to do, its not a surprise that many favour doing everything possible to reduce illness and death. But they are not required to consider what happens if you keep punitive restrictions, businesses fail and consequences ensue. At this point, its no longer possible to just follow the science. Which science? Economics is also (barely) a science.
So you are both right, in that it has been cynically deployed, but it is understandable too.
Somehow priceless, considering his nineteenth-century gentleman's persona. After Covid and the government's potentially lethal infringements on democracy in the Police Bill, finally the week brings some good news.
Next should be the horrifically fascinating Trump-Farage spectacle, shown tonight. I'm not sure what is, but perhaps it's that these two are now such familiarly contemptible characters, so easy to laugh at, that they've almost become relaxing to watch in their dangerousness.
Added to which ofcourse, Farage always genuine antennae for what's politically relevant, meaning the grimly amusing spectacle will probably include something or other that has some genuine political significance, at least in the US.
eg https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-59482080
eg Here is Pulse stating that 90% of salaried GPs work part time.
https://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/news/workload/nhs-england-says-almost-90-of-gps-work-part-time-in-response-to-pulse-survey/
Is this really a capacity constraint?
Perhaps we need a condition to require extra hours in time of need in the GP part time contract?
Big problems for the Tories next round, IMHO
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/covid-news-cases-deaths-booster-jab-coronavirus-omicron/
My understanding was that the vast bulk (if not nearly all) is from people who'd arrived via legal means then overstayed visas etc rather than arriving via boats.
The idea that he could win is laughable .
Yes 55 (+5)
No 45 (-5)
Changes since May.
https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/boris-johnsons-ratings-hit-record-low-scotland-snp-support-stays-strong
There are also potential capacity constraints in terms of offices, support staff, and so on.
(Sorry I was rude to you the other day, by the way. By way of an explanation, the threat of restrictions makes me extremely anxious, and I lashed out)
The issue is more that the majority of the population has always been more prone to caution than the Government, and any new development like Omicron triggers the oo-er response. Sitting in Whitehall, it may make sense to say "Go forth and mingle, it's good for the economy and you're not at much risk if you're vaccinated", but if you're an individual you may well conclude that taking any non-trivial risk is not worth it for the sake of a curry. My neighbours (highly vulnerable elderly folk) have cancelled a family Christmas meal for that reason.
I'm not talking my book here - I've got a few people coming to dinner next week, and am going to someone else's dinner as well. As I'm triple-vaccinated I feel I can reasonably risk it. But I understand people who take a different view, and it's not because of Harries.
It's positively HYUFDian.
Paul Waugh
@paulwaugh
·
49s
Starmer sounds onto something with this spin document that urges staff to call "refurbishment" of hospitals "new hospitals".
Would be interesting to see the actual document
#PMQs
https://www.thenational.scot/news/19754489.douglas-ross-faces-investigation-parliamentary-commissioner-standards/?ref=ebbn
In 2024 SKS is the complete opposite completely lacking in charisma and any policies and it is Labour via Starmer that is divided and factional ragbag of squabblers.
I don't think hers is the only Zero COVID approach, but to entertain this R needs to be held below 1 at almost all times and in all places globally. With Omicron coming in you'd want UK R down at 0.7, so you have headroom to see and respond to the Omicron uptick. I think that would close entertainment and re bubble schools at least in the UK as of today. This would then harshen as needed whenever R approached 1.
What I wonder is the aftermath of zero COVID... If you have successfully suppressed a pandemic respiratory virus, have you also suppressed all the seasonal viruses? The human lung would approximate to an unoccupied ecological niche. Like the human gut after all the natural bugs have been wiped out by antibiotics. What would fill that ecological niche? Would native flu come back from some far flung corner where it had been hiding. Would we be massively susceptible to another new introduced virus. Would we have to expose ourself to seasonal flu again - the lung equivalent of drinking Yakult after an antibiotics course?
Has any one in the Zero COVID people ever addressed this phase of their project? Because to be even a 'scientifically valid' choice at a basic level, then not leaving a load of unintended consequences to chance in the aftermath of zero COVID is achieved is an essential.
No, I think zero COVID would introduce a vast and dangerous vacuum in humanity's internal ecosystem and the refilling of that ecosystem would be unpredictable and chaotic. Even without considering the social implications one jot, a controlled and vaccinated push towards herd immunity and endemicity is far, far epidemiologically safer, I think.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/nov/30/starmer-labour-rightwingers-control-factional-vendettas
10% of Scottish Labour voters would vote Yes in Indyref2
and
9% of SNP voters would vote No in Indyref2
Maybe i will vote Green maybe I will vote Tory.
My MP will lose Chesterfield thats far less a maybe and more a nailed on certainty if Boris is still leader.
But my point is I don’t think it is such a big deal. Think of it like the rugby or football, after an inept performance certainly football fans can boo manager or team, but the fans are not abandoning the club. So making comparisons what happens at general elections in a seat ignores how by elections are different, the voters know it’s about booing current manager or team performance not switching to a new club or seeing arch rivals take power.
So the more relevant guide here may not be where party’s are in latest polls but where Boris or governments satisfaction ratings are.
Since I placed the bet, to emphasise how weeks can be long time in politics, there has been a big development I think, how Reform might be emerging as a slick outfit good a siphoning away disgruntled, populist right wing, anti immigration voters who conservatives owned at last election.
If the Policing Bill threats to legitimate protest also get cut-through, Scots could be even keener to shake off what is seen as arrogant and overbearing Westminster.
Before anyone says "how beastly" in reference to the leader's treatment of the deputy, think back to the conference where they tried to remove Tom Watson and failed miserably.
If the hard left don't want to vote Labour there are a plethora of splinter groups out there, including the laughably named "left unity".
Pre-pandemic 8-12 people was the normal range.
I stayed away because I'm prioritising my trip to Bath, and I don't want to catch anything that would put that at risk beforehand. Completely bizarre, but necessary precaution in the circumstances, while we're still doing mass testing.
Our work decided a while ago to make the Christmas do online again. Pretty sure the lack of the novelty value will mean it suffers, but work were good about posting us all a drink beforehand last year so fingers crossed for small mercies.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/nov/30/keir-starmer-reshuffle-general-election-2023-labour
Edit: And this: https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20211130-zemmour-s-fall-in-polls-signals-lack-of-presidential-credibility-amid-campaign-launch
(falling poll ratings, apparently)
Suits my betting for him to crash and burn (although I'm fine as long as he doesn't actually win the thing!)
I can see the logic for May 23 but only because they are missing a fundamental fact.
“ Omicron poses an uncertain threat for the future but not an immediate threat “.
Nothing has really changed has it? We should shop and party as intended before omicron still shouldn’t we?
https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2021/07/16/in-the-betting-its-about-evens-that-bojo-will-re-introduce-restrictions-by-the-end-of-the-year/
She seems to enjoy that role as she indulges in mouth-foaming rants about Tory scum which cause the Labour party considerable harm. That one speech alone was enough for Starmer to bin her off.
https://twitter.com/Davewwest/status/1430868484104368128
A new building at an existing hospital is not a new hospital no matter how stupid the government think people are.