How would a “progressive alliance” work? – politicalbetting.com

Beibheirli_C said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Beibheirli_C said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mrs C, even if rejoining the EU?

I never left. I am still an EU citizen

You also assume that the EU would have the UK back. It is far safer to shunt the UK into the EEA

We have the exciting prospect in a few years time of the types who have been in permarage mode about the evil EUSSR for decades directing their pique at the EU for being uninterested in the UK rejoining as a full member.

That sounds about right

MaxPB said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Scott_xP said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Re lack of science in cabinet. My understanding is there a similar dearth across the civil service and it is something Patrick Valence in particular has been raising for ages.

Sir Patrick Vallance briefing with MPs today (scheduled for 2pm) has been called off “due to scheduling constraints”
https://twitter.com/kateferguson4/status/1472921211797753857

Convenient.....

So now they can't even question the scientists? Boris really is trying to bounce the Cabinet into this and make the likes of Rishi own it. I really hope they have the stones to tell him to get fucked.

CarlottaVance said:

HYUFD said:

CarlottaVance said:

The potential replacements for Johnson don't look much better:

In no particular order

Truss: PPE
Sunak: PPE
Javid: Economics
Gove: English
Raab: Law
Patel: Economics
Wallace: Sandhurst
Barclay: History
Kwarteng: Classics/History
Sharma: Applied Physics & Electronics
Dorries: Nursing
Treveleyan: Accountancy
Coffey: Chemistry
Zahawi: Chemical Engineering
Shapps: HND in Business
Lewis: Economics/Law

So what? Most of SAGE have science degrees

Yes - and the Cabinet are largely not well equipped to challenge them.

HYUFD said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Re lack of science in cabinet. My understanding is there a similar dearth across the civil service and it is something Patrick Valence in particular has been raising for ages. In a modern economy having sufficient expertise in science is crucial.

I guess the problem is say a STEM PhD from a top tier university is going to have a range of well paid opportunities, i doubt the civil service ranks very highly on that.

Most of SAGE have science degrees

FrancisUrquhart said:

HYUFD said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Re lack of science in cabinet. My understanding is there a similar dearth across the civil service and it is something Patrick Valence in particular has been raising for ages. In a modern economy having sufficient expertise in science is crucial.

I guess the problem is say a STEM PhD from a top tier university is going to have a range of well paid opportunities, i doubt the civil service ranks very highly on that.

Most of SAGE have science degrees

SAGE aren't the civil service. That is the point. The scientists come in and explain things and the civil service don't have enough qualified people to really understand or challenge.

Cookie said:

kyf_100 said:

Nigelb said:

kyf_100 said:

Nigelb said:

kyf_100 said:

Your friendly reminder to all those salivating for electoral reform that in 2015 the Tories + UKIP + DUP would have got them to 50%. I know it's not ceteris paribus because people might have voted differently under a different electoral system. But it is a cautionary tale.

Be careful what you wish for, a "progressive alliance" under proportional representation might very well mean a "reactionary alliance" where the Tories bring people much further to the right into government in order to win.

One of the best things about our current system is that it generally keeps the extremists on both sides out.

That is to assume the parties would remain the same under PR.

That is what I said in my original comment.

"I know it's not ceteris paribus because people might have voted differently under a different electoral system. But it is a cautionary tale."

Or rather it's saying we can't have people voting for who they really want, because we might not like the result.
It's a fundamentally undemocratic argument.

If PR led to the fracturing of the party system, and you ended up with a literal Fascist party securing 5% or more of the vote, how comfortable would you be with them entering government to satisfy your "fundamentally democratic" principles.

Per the other night's discussion, I know we're not supposed to say "beyond the pale" any more but I do think one of the benefits of our current electoral system is that it keeps the far right and far left fringes far away from the levers of power.

You may see that as a flaw in the system - I see it as one of its virtues.

The thread header is talking about an arrangement which would accommodate the Greens. Would you not describe them as 'fringe far left'?

moonshine said:

HYUFD said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Re lack of science in cabinet. My understanding is there a similar dearth across the civil service and it is something Patrick Valence in particular has been raising for ages. In a modern economy having sufficient expertise in science is crucial.

I guess the problem is say a STEM PhD from a top tier university is going to have a range of well paid opportunities, i doubt the civil service ranks very highly on that.

Most of SAGE have science degrees

How many of them are experts in immunology and epidemiology?

Richard_Tyndall said:

Beibheirli_C said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Beibheirli_C said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mrs C, even if rejoining the EU?

I never left. I am still an EU citizen

You also assume that the EU would have the UK back. It is far safer to shunt the UK into the EEA

We have the exciting prospect in a few years time of the types who have been in permarage mode about the evil EUSSR for decades directing their pique at the EU for being uninterested in the UK rejoining as a full member.

That sounds about right

Only if you believe in straw men. No one with any sanity would be interested in rejoining anyway so whether the EU would want us or not becomes a moot point.

The only ones who might be upset about it would be those who never reconciled themselves to Brexit and were faced with their fantasies about rejoining being dashed. It is the Europhiles who always had the warped view of our relationship with the EU and thought we were more important than we really were and it is they who would have their illusions shattered by finding out that we really don't matter one way or another to the organisation.

Scott_xP said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

it is they who would have their illusions shattered by finding out that we really don't matter one way or another to the organisation.

The Brexiteers were the ones that predicted the demise of the EU if we left.

Didn't happen.

And while it is true, we don't matter to the EU, the problem is it matters to us.

A lot.

Which is why Brexit is not 'done" and continues to consume its children at a rate of knots

FrancisUrquhart said:

HYUFD said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

HYUFD said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Re lack of science in cabinet. My understanding is there a similar dearth across the civil service and it is something Patrick Valence in particular has been raising for ages. In a modern economy having sufficient expertise in science is crucial.

I guess the problem is say a STEM PhD from a top tier university is going to have a range of well paid opportunities, i doubt the civil service ranks very highly on that.

Most of SAGE have science degrees

SAGE aren't the civil service. That is the point. The scientists come in and explain things and the civil service don't have enough qualified people to really understand or challenge.

Chris Whitty has worked for DFID and the Department of Health, he is effectively a civil servant as CMO

As a whole.....and I didn't say none, I said a lack of....as I say, this isn't my observation, this is Patrick Vallance's. What he is really talking about is the lack of STEM talent outside of the very prescribed "science" roles such as CMO. It is also really what Big Dom was getting at, albeit in his blow everything up and start again in a chaotic way.

glw said:

The headline:

Hobnobs maker warns biscuit prices set to soar
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-59728325

Biscuit maker McVitie's says the prices of many of its best-selling brands are set to soar.

The firm, which is owned by Pladis Global, said brands such as Jaffa Cakes, Penguins and Hobnobs could go up in price by as much as 5%.

FrancisUrquhart said:

Former Corbyn Aide Laura Murray has lost her libel battle against Countdown star Rachel Riley, resulting in a £10,000 payout.

It shouldn’t be too difficult for Laura to stump up the money, given her family previously sold a Picasso portrait for £50 million in 2013 – they must be able to find £10,000 down the back of the sofa…

https://order-order.com/2021/12/20/rachel-riley-wins-10000-pay-out-from-former-corbyn-aide-laura-murray/

What is it with these Corbynistas being filthy rich....Also its of course its all a very small world, Laura is Andrew Murray's daughter, who was married to Susan Michie.

not_on_fire said:

WhisperingOracle said:

HYUFD said:

Post Brexit it is certainly hard to see the LDs doing a deal with a still Boris led Tories, they would certainly prefer Starmer to him in a hung parliament. However if say the more Cameron like Sunak became Tory leader and won most seats but just short of a majority it is not impossible Davey would give him confidence and supply in some issues.

In 2010 too had David Miliband been Labour leader not Brown a Labour-LD coalition not the Clegg-Cameron deal could have been the end result

The Liberal Democrat base, grassroots and membership have been strongly opposed to any more co-operation with the Tories, all the way since 2015, and after Brexit and the new populism, doubly so. I very much doubt that would be possible.

Yes - 2015 showed conclusively that any co-operation with the Tories leads to an extinction-level event for the LDs.

HYUFD said:

Post Brexit it is certainly hard to see the LDs doing a deal with a still Boris led Tories, they would certainly prefer Starmer to him in a hung parliament. However if say the more Cameron like Sunak became Tory leader and won most seats but just short of a majority it is not impossible Davey would give him confidence and supply in some issues.

In 2010 too had David Miliband been Labour leader not Brown a Labour-LD coalition not the Clegg-Cameron deal could have been the end result

jgc31 said:

Parliament being recalled on Wednesday. See how that goes down on the tory benches.

jgc31 said:

Parliament being recalled on Wednesday. See how that goes down on the tory benches.

kyf_100 said:

Your friendly reminder to all those salivating for electoral reform that in 2015 the Tories + UKIP + DUP would have got them to 50%. I know it's not ceteris paribus because people might have voted differently under a different electoral system. But it is a cautionary tale.

Be careful what you wish for, a "progressive alliance" under proportional representation might very well mean a "reactionary alliance" where the Tories bring people much further to the right into government in order to win.

One of the best things about our current system is that it generally keeps the extremists on both sides out.

eek said:

jgc31 said:

Parliament being recalled on Wednesday. See how that goes down on the tory benches.

That's a lockdown nailed on then sadly. As does anyone on here see any justification for having one?

WhisperingOracle said:

HYUFD said:

WhisperingOracle said:

kyf_100 said:

Nigelb said:

kyf_100 said:

Nigelb said:

kyf_100 said:

Your friendly reminder to all those salivating for electoral reform that in 2015 the Tories + UKIP + DUP would have got them to 50%. I know it's not ceteris paribus because people might have voted differently under a different electoral system. But it is a cautionary tale.

Be careful what you wish for, a "progressive alliance" under proportional representation might very well mean a "reactionary alliance" where the Tories bring people much further to the right into government in order to win.

One of the best things about our current system is that it generally keeps the extremists on both sides out.

That is to assume the parties would remain the same under PR.

That is what I said in my original comment.

"I know it's not ceteris paribus because people might have voted differently under a different electoral system. But it is a cautionary tale."

Or rather it's saying we can't have people voting for who they really want, because we might not like the result.
It's a fundamentally undemocratic argument.

If PR led to the fracturing of the party system, and you ended up with a literal Fascist party securing 5% or more of the vote, how comfortable would you be with them entering government to satisfy your "fundamentally democratic" principles.

Per the other night's discussion, I know we're not supposed to say "beyond the pale" any more but I do think one of the benefits of our current electoral system is that it keeps the far right and far left fringes far away from the levers of power.

You may see that as a flaw in the system - I see it as one of its virtues.

Well, Germany has the AFD and Die Linke in parliament, and the system seems to be functioning fairly well.

At the present moment I actually think parliament might be better and in fact healthier for a few Green and Reform Party MP's encouraging other MP's on the left of Labour and the right of the Tories in towards a broader alignment.

If we had PR then yes the Greens and a new Corbynite party would get seats as would RefUK (which some rightwing Tories would join as the Corbyniyte wing of Labour left to start their own party).

However in terms of government we would generally have centrist coalition governments of Lab-LD or Tory-LD, maybe on occasion propped up by the Greens and Corbynites in terms of the former or RefUK in terms of the latter.

We would not have majority Labour or Tory governments again. As Germany and NZ and Spain and Italy and Sweden and Ireland and Israel have found, full PR generally means the government is determined after the election in the coalition negotiations more than it is in the election itself by the voters unless there is a huge swing.

I agree with much of this, except that I don't think a Tory-LD coalition is a possibility at the moment at all.

DecrepiterJohnL said:

HYUFD said:

Post Brexit it is certainly hard to see the LDs doing a deal with a still Boris led Tories, they would certainly prefer Starmer to him in a hung parliament. However if say the more Cameron like Sunak became Tory leader and won most seats but just short of a majority it is not impossible Davey would give him confidence and supply in some issues.

In 2010 too had David Miliband been Labour leader not Brown a Labour-LD coalition not the Clegg-Cameron deal could have been the end result

iirc in 2010 Brown offered to resign as the price of LibDem support but, well, the rest is history.

RobD said:

eek said:

jgc31 said:

Parliament being recalled on Wednesday. See how that goes down on the tory benches.

That's a lockdown nailed on then sadly. As does anyone on here see any justification for having one?

How quick can a VONC be organised?

HYUFD said:

WhisperingOracle said:

HYUFD said:

WhisperingOracle said:

kyf_100 said:

Nigelb said:

kyf_100 said:

Nigelb said:

kyf_100 said:

Your friendly reminder to all those salivating for electoral reform that in 2015 the Tories + UKIP + DUP would have got them to 50%. I know it's not ceteris paribus because people might have voted differently under a different electoral system. But it is a cautionary tale.

Be careful what you wish for, a "progressive alliance" under proportional representation might very well mean a "reactionary alliance" where the Tories bring people much further to the right into government in order to win.

One of the best things about our current system is that it generally keeps the extremists on both sides out.

That is to assume the parties would remain the same under PR.

That is what I said in my original comment.

"I know it's not ceteris paribus because people might have voted differently under a different electoral system. But it is a cautionary tale."

Or rather it's saying we can't have people voting for who they really want, because we might not like the result.
It's a fundamentally undemocratic argument.

If PR led to the fracturing of the party system, and you ended up with a literal Fascist party securing 5% or more of the vote, how comfortable would you be with them entering government to satisfy your "fundamentally democratic" principles.

Per the other night's discussion, I know we're not supposed to say "beyond the pale" any more but I do think one of the benefits of our current electoral system is that it keeps the far right and far left fringes far away from the levers of power.

You may see that as a flaw in the system - I see it as one of its virtues.

Well, Germany has the AFD and Die Linke in parliament, and the system seems to be functioning fairly well.

At the present moment I actually think parliament might be better and in fact healthier for a few Green and Reform Party MP's encouraging other MP's on the left of Labour and the right of the Tories in towards a broader alignment.

If we had PR then yes the Greens and a new Corbynite party would get seats as would RefUK (which some rightwing Tories would join as the Corbyniyte wing of Labour left to start their own party).

However in terms of government we would generally have centrist coalition governments of Lab-LD or Tory-LD, maybe on occasion propped up by the Greens and Corbynites in terms of the former or RefUK in terms of the latter.

We would not have majority Labour or Tory governments again. As Germany and NZ and Spain and Italy and Sweden and Ireland and Israel have found, full PR generally means the government is determined after the election in the coalition negotiations more than it is in the election itself by the voters unless there is a huge swing.

I agree with much of this, except that I don't think a Tory-LD coalition is a possibility at the moment at all.

Under PR a Tory-LD coalition would become a frequent occurrence. The LDs might even split into Orange Book and Social Democrat wings, the former going with the Tories on the whole, the latter with Labour

Eabhal said:

jgc31 said:

To those looking for a source for the recall thing, text to Labour MPs from the whips office. Sure it will be appearing on journo's twitter feed shortly.

But they are only 6 mins into this cabinet meeting?

theProle said:

OT, but there may be people who can advise, given the collective knowledge round here.

I'm getting married next May, and thus need to give notice at my local registry office.

I was born in Australia to two married British nationals in 1987, who returned with me aged 7 months, travelling on my mums passport.

I'm a British national, and don't hold dual citizenship (nor do either of my parents)

I don't hold, and have never held a passport, but do have a full Australian birth certificate, also my both my parent's birth certificate's and marriage certificate. I have a current photocard driving licence which is correctly addressed.

The registry office is insistant that the only possible way I can give notice is to first obtain a passport. I don't want or need a passport (indeed I have a specific reason to not want to have a passport). It seems to completely unreasonable to me that I'm required to provide a passport to get married, with no alternative being available.

Any suggestions (I'm going to try my local MP - it's a good way to find out if his caseworker is any good)?

WhisperingOracle said:

HYUFD said:

WhisperingOracle said:

HYUFD said:

WhisperingOracle said:

kyf_100 said:

Nigelb said:

kyf_100 said:

Nigelb said:

kyf_100 said:

Your friendly reminder to all those salivating for electoral reform that in 2015 the Tories + UKIP + DUP would have got them to 50%. I know it's not ceteris paribus because people might have voted differently under a different electoral system. But it is a cautionary tale.

Be careful what you wish for, a "progressive alliance" under proportional representation might very well mean a "reactionary alliance" where the Tories bring people much further to the right into government in order to win.

One of the best things about our current system is that it generally keeps the extremists on both sides out.

That is to assume the parties would remain the same under PR.

That is what I said in my original comment.

"I know it's not ceteris paribus because people might have voted differently under a different electoral system. But it is a cautionary tale."

Or rather it's saying we can't have people voting for who they really want, because we might not like the result.
It's a fundamentally undemocratic argument.

If PR led to the fracturing of the party system, and you ended up with a literal Fascist party securing 5% or more of the vote, how comfortable would you be with them entering government to satisfy your "fundamentally democratic" principles.

Per the other night's discussion, I know we're not supposed to say "beyond the pale" any more but I do think one of the benefits of our current electoral system is that it keeps the far right and far left fringes far away from the levers of power.

You may see that as a flaw in the system - I see it as one of its virtues.

Well, Germany has the AFD and Die Linke in parliament, and the system seems to be functioning fairly well.

At the present moment I actually think parliament might be better and in fact healthier for a few Green and Reform Party MP's encouraging other MP's on the left of Labour and the right of the Tories in towards a broader alignment.

If we had PR then yes the Greens and a new Corbynite party would get seats as would RefUK (which some rightwing Tories would join as the Corbyniyte wing of Labour left to start their own party).

However in terms of government we would generally have centrist coalition governments of Lab-LD or Tory-LD, maybe on occasion propped up by the Greens and Corbynites in terms of the former or RefUK in terms of the latter.

We would not have majority Labour or Tory governments again. As Germany and NZ and Spain and Italy and Sweden and Ireland and Israel have found, full PR generally means the government is determined after the election in the coalition negotiations more than it is in the election itself by the voters unless there is a huge swing.

I agree with much of this, except that I don't think a Tory-LD coalition is a possibility at the moment at all.

Under PR a Tory-LD coalition would become a frequent occurrence. The LDs might even split into Orange Book and Social Democrat wings, the former going with the Tories on the whole, the latter with Labour

This would need a total PR-led realignment, though, which wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing ; Greens/Labour Left/Remnants of LD left , Right of the LD's/Right of Labour/Tory Centrists, and finally former Tory Brexiters/Refuk etc on the right.

All this would be dependent on a complete realignment, though. In the next parliament, especiallu before any PR realignment, the only possible co-operations would be Tory/Refuk, and Labour/LD, and that's what I expect to happen.

theProle said:

OT, but there may be people who can advise, given the collective knowledge round here.

I'm getting married next May, and thus need to give notice at my local registry office.

I was born in Australia to two married British nationals in 1987, who returned with me aged 7 months, travelling on my mums passport.

I'm a British national, and don't hold dual citizenship (nor do either of my parents)

I don't hold, and have never held a passport, but do have a full Australian birth certificate, also my both my parent's birth certificate's and marriage certificate. I have a current photocard driving licence which is correctly addressed.

The registry office is insistant that the only possible way I can give notice is to first obtain a passport. I don't want or need a passport (indeed I have a specific reason to not want to have a passport). It seems to completely unreasonable to me that I'm required to provide a passport to get married, with no alternative being available.

Any suggestions (I'm going to try my local MP - it's a good way to find out if his caseworker is any good)?

CorrectHorseBattery said:

CarlottaVance said:

Told cabinet ministers are pushing PM for no measures at Christmas - maybe just some guidance/advice on being safe - then restrictions on indoor mixing implemented next week. Cabinet meeting now… we’ll see

https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/1472931790197305354?s=20

I was first

JosiasJessop said:

MaxPB said:

JosiasJessop said:

MaxPB said:

Gardenwalker said:

MaxPB said:

Gardenwalker said:

Cyclefree said:

rottenborough said:

Cyclefree said:

kinabalu said:

Cyclefree said:

eek said:

Cyclefree said:

numbertwelve said:

On topic there is little practical benefit to putting in restrictions for Christmas at this stage. Plans have been made. People are travelling as we speak. Food has been bought.

The chances of getting the population to comply this year are nigh on impossible, given how late it is in the day and all the news stories that are coming out about last year (“it was OK for you guys then,” etc…)

I suspect we’ll get advisory warnings not to mix more than 2 households or whatever which will be promptly ignored by all and sundry.

I’m not even sure restrictions after Christmas are going to be particularly closely followed. The festive season isn’t just Christmas Day: it’s often a chain of events leading up to and including New Year’s Day.

The first day where meaningful restrictions can probably be introduced is from 2 January - the miserable weeks where nothing much happens anyway.

Does Daughter - and all those in her position - order in food and drinks and risk finding herself with unsold stock because at the last minute a curfew is imposed or venues are told to close like last year?

Or does she simply keep the place closed to minimise losses? It's not as if there are only 5 working days before 4 days of holidays and plans to be made and deadlines to be met. I mean, all the time in the world for governments to faff around like clueless idiots.

And it's not as if she needs to order food for the 27th / 28th now because suppliers won't be open on then.

It's a tough decision with zero right answers - personally I would probably be skipping the food and doing drinks (but I know that's not where the profit is).

Closure looks the most likely. What on earth is the point of carrying on? She may as well have some rest at home. She certainly deserves it.

That does sound perhaps the way to go.

Just a question from somebody who knows not much about the catering trade -

Would an option be to just shut down, lie low or do something else for a while, then when Covid looks reliably over, and if the desire and ambition remains, fire up again using the contacts and expertise amassed?

Her lease comes to an end in March. She will not be renewing. She will be using the contacts she has amassed and the experience she has gained to move on to something else - as yet undecided. Certainly many of her customers - experienced professionals not prone to giving undeserved compliments - have said that she should have no difficulty getting something worthwhile and will succeed at whatever she does.

She did originally have plans to expand the venue - and had lots of ideas for it - and was thinking of getting someone to invest with her and she would move into being an overall manager rather than doing all the day to day stuff, having first built up the business and reputation. She has certainly done the latter but it is hard to see who would want to invest in this sector at such a time.

Though in reality it is - if you can get in at the right price - quite a good time to develop the venue. Where we live will soon be in the Lake District National Park, tourism is expanding and there is some government investment in the area. But another year of fighting to keep the place alive with all this uncertainty, no support, price increases etc - no, she's had enough of that. Time to take stock and do what is best for her.

Every pub landlord/lady in UK must be thinking that at the moment. Sad times.

Every restaurant, cafe, travel business, hotel too. And many in the arts sector too.

It is indeed very sad.

I want to have a relaxing time at Xmas for her and her siblings above all. They have had a shitty two years. I am beyond depressed at this continuing.

Come to the Algarve; take your whole family.

It’s sunny and airy and nobody cares about the insane incompetence of Boris-land. There’s an element of surreal hysteria permeating the whole U.K. right now.

Seriously. My grief and stress collapsed the moment I exited Faro airport.

The hysteria is primarily driven by the dodgy data models and ministers too stupid to ask the right questions of the modellers. The scientists really will have a lot to answer for in the post-COVID inquiries, especially now that we know they are deliberately excluding likely but favourable scenarios from their forecasts.

I part ways from you a bit on this.

I think the modellers are pushing out what they are asked to, and they have simply taken an agnostic approach to what remains an unconfirmed variable (“mildness”).

There are, I think, several questions which I haven’t seen good responses on.

1. Why is there not more sensitivity analysis around the four or five key variables? Although it would simply increase the confidence intervals wider, it would give a fuller picture to decision makers.

2. How confident are modellers on the impact of further restrictions, given the known speed and infectiousness of Omicron.

3. The relationships between peak day versus total wave deaths, and the extent to which restrictions simply defer those deaths.

4. The impact on hospital capacity, and the impact on non-Covid health services

5. The cost of restrictions, which must be weighed against any impact.

So the mildness is now "confirmed" by a UK study looking into how Omicron operates within the respiratory system, it seems to have a big advantage in the upper tract (which is why we get coughs an sore throats) but also a big disadvantage in the lower respiratory tract (which is why few people in SA needed mechanical ventilation or oxygen). That finding was thrown out by the modellers and they used the assumption that Omicron manifests identical symptoms and severity to Delta.

1. It won't lead to decisions being made, so they don't do it.
2. They say it would halt it, but other models non-SAGE and non-UK disagree and say Omicron takes to well to the nasal pathways to avoid infections even with very low social interaction.
3. Interesting exercise, not carried out
4. They say it will be a disaster, but they also threw out the evidence that Omicron requires less intense use of healthcare services due to having a big disadvantage in lung tissue compared to delta, so who knows whether it actually will. Experiences in SA vs the SA delta wave are quite favourable, average length of stay is down, use of mechanical ventilation is down, need for oxygen is down and survival rates are up. That could be explained by lots of factors though.
5. The big one I guess, the Bank is no longer going to simply print Rishi £40bn per month of restrictions so the money will need to be raised through tax. Can the UK really afford an additional £40bn in tax for COVID measures to continue indefinitely?


The reason I'm unconvinced by the models is because we have to key observations from Omicron, vaccine efficacy is between 93% and 95% with three doses against severe disease and a UK study showing that it has a disadvantage in the lower respiratory tract and a big advantage in the upper respiratory tract. The SAGE models used modelled vaccine efficacy of 85% rather than the observed VE of 93-95% and as I said above they also gave Omicron identical disease characteristics to Delta, which we now know not to be true.

To me it feels like the scientists (or at least whoever has asked for these specific scenarios to be modelled) are trying to bounce the UK into a lockdown. Using modelled rather than observed VE is weird and throwing out favourable data and replacing it with unfavourable data is also weird. It also helps them get to the conclusion that we need to lockdown yesterday. Changing those inputs would result in a very large decrease all of their scary numbers, I wonder whether any of the Cabinet will force the issue and ask for the models to be redone with the correct inputs.

There will be a time lag between the results from models and the current knowledge. Take the UK study into how Omicron affects the upper respiratory system. You cannot just plug that into the model: you need to ask a whole series of questions. Is it relevant? What's the effect in people? Are there other effects? Is this study likely to be accurate? How do you account for this new information in the model? You then need run the models, discuss what the results, and disseminate.

The study was only reported on in the last day or so (following on from the HK study four or five days ago); it's a bit much to expect it to be factored into decision making immediately.

I think stating that scientists are trying to bounce the UK into a lockdown is unsubstantiated.

You plug it in as a scenario, though. I'm not saying that it should be used as the central forecast, but they should at least be saying "this could also happen according to our latest studies on Omicron symptoms".

In a situation that we're in with decision making needing the best available data I'd say that plugging in the latest and most up to date information into models is absolutely necessary. If we lockdown for whatever period at a cost of £8bn per week to the economy and, yes, it turns out that Omicron hospitalises at a significantly lower rate because of the mechanism outlined in multiple studies that were known at the time then it's on whoever decided to throw those findings out and use assumed rather than observed data.

But as I said: if it's the UK study I think you're referring to, then it was released (or reported) yesterday. The idea that it should have been in models and influencing decisions before today is, I think, rather optimistic. I mean, there's using up-to-date information, and then there's chucking anything at the models like a rabid monkey with diarrhoea.

Did you read Andy Cooke's posts from yesterday? I think they're very good, and on the optimistic side without going quite as far as you do against the scientists.

IanB2 said:

kyf_100 said:

Your friendly reminder to all those salivating for electoral reform that in 2015 the Tories + UKIP + DUP would have got them to 50%. I know it's not ceteris paribus because people might have voted differently under a different electoral system. But it is a cautionary tale.

Be careful what you wish for, a "progressive alliance" under proportional representation might very well mean a "reactionary alliance" where the Tories bring people much further to the right into government in order to win.

One of the best things about our current system is that it generally keeps the extremists on both sides out.

Firstly, the question as to whether our system does keep all the extremists out is at least arguable!

Secondly, almost every PR system has some kind of threshold below which you don't get representation - either deliberately introduced into the system, like Germany's 5%, or intrinsic to the electoral mechanism as under STV (where typically it can be at least 15% for an electoral area, depending on its size)

Thirdly, if "extremists" are polling above those levels, I'd argue it is more healthy for them to have representation and be accountable for their views to voters and the media, than the current situation where massive vote hauls can go un- or severely under-represented. Remember all the fuss about never allowing the BNP anywhere near the media, then one (controversial and widely resisted!) appearance by their leader on BBC Question Time was enough to finish them off as any sort of force in British politics.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Anyone able to corroborate @jgc31

Richard_Tyndall said:

Cookie said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

maaarsh said:

Leon said:

Eabhal said:

Leon said:

Lockdown skepticism is like Brexiteering on steroids


It's gone from fringe lunacy to absolute mainstream in about a year


Everyone I know, bar a few die-hards, and some old or fearful types, is saying Fuck it I won't do it again

Whether they will walk the talk, who knows, but this is yet more dangerous territory for HMG. The public is not behind the lockdown ultras, this time

I'd love it if you were right. But:

https://comresglobal.com/polls/lockdown-snap-poll-december-2021/

Hmm. And yet other recent polls show the opposite

One thing I am sure of is that the opposition has grown, both in number but also in determination. It may still be the minority view, but those opposed to lockdown are now much more vocal and bolshy

Large parts of the lockdown support comes from people for whom it makes no difference. Opposition can be a minority and yet render it meaningless if all the people who actually go out crack on.

Is it true though? Lots of cancellations are reported by restaurants but surely these cancelled bookings were initially made by people who did want to go out.

No, subtle difference here - these are people adjusting their behaviour according to their own calibration of risk (and largely, it's 'will I miss my first family Christmas since 2019 by catching covid' rather than 'will I die?'). That doesn't mean they wish to be prevented from going out.
I would expect, left to our own devices, we would see a significant reduction in R, probably to less than 1, by Christmas, simply through this alone.
Of course, left to our own devices, R would then go up again afterwards as people would self-police less rigorously with fewer specific events to avoid covid for.
(All of which of course ignores other impacts on R from boosters etc.)

Yep this is exactly it. No one wants to risk being prevented from seeing family before Christmas because they have caught something that, whilst it will do them no great harm, would make it illegal for them to see loved ones. Also, in spite of the Government messages to the contrary, most people I know still think that if you are in contact with someone who has covid you have to isolate for a week. This is affecting a lot of people's behaviour.

CarlottaVance said:

Sun:

BORIS Johnson is not preparing to announce any more Covid restrictions today despite summoning a crunch Cabinet meeting, The Sun understands.

The PM is pressing pause on a press conference after top ministers demanded more time to examine the latest Omicron data before rubber-stamping any fresh curbs they fear will take a sledgehammer to Christmas.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/17092767/boris-johnson-no-announcement-today/

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Does the virus take Christmas off?

If we need restrictions, put them in now. If we need them next week, do we really need them?

CarlottaVance said:

JosiasJessop said:

MaxPB said:

JosiasJessop said:

MaxPB said:

Gardenwalker said:

MaxPB said:

Gardenwalker said:

Cyclefree said:

rottenborough said:

Cyclefree said:

kinabalu said:

Cyclefree said:

eek said:

Cyclefree said:

numbertwelve said:

On topic there is little practical benefit to putting in restrictions for Christmas at this stage. Plans have been made. People are travelling as we speak. Food has been bought.

The chances of getting the population to comply this year are nigh on impossible, given how late it is in the day and all the news stories that are coming out about last year (“it was OK for you guys then,” etc…)

I suspect we’ll get advisory warnings not to mix more than 2 households or whatever which will be promptly ignored by all and sundry.

I’m not even sure restrictions after Christmas are going to be particularly closely followed. The festive season isn’t just Christmas Day: it’s often a chain of events leading up to and including New Year’s Day.

The first day where meaningful restrictions can probably be introduced is from 2 January - the miserable weeks where nothing much happens anyway.

Does Daughter - and all those in her position - order in food and drinks and risk finding herself with unsold stock because at the last minute a curfew is imposed or venues are told to close like last year?

Or does she simply keep the place closed to minimise losses? It's not as if there are only 5 working days before 4 days of holidays and plans to be made and deadlines to be met. I mean, all the time in the world for governments to faff around like clueless idiots.

And it's not as if she needs to order food for the 27th / 28th now because suppliers won't be open on then.

It's a tough decision with zero right answers - personally I would probably be skipping the food and doing drinks (but I know that's not where the profit is).

Closure looks the most likely. What on earth is the point of carrying on? She may as well have some rest at home. She certainly deserves it.

That does sound perhaps the way to go.

Just a question from somebody who knows not much about the catering trade -

Would an option be to just shut down, lie low or do something else for a while, then when Covid looks reliably over, and if the desire and ambition remains, fire up again using the contacts and expertise amassed?

Her lease comes to an end in March. She will not be renewing. She will be using the contacts she has amassed and the experience she has gained to move on to something else - as yet undecided. Certainly many of her customers - experienced professionals not prone to giving undeserved compliments - have said that she should have no difficulty getting something worthwhile and will succeed at whatever she does.

She did originally have plans to expand the venue - and had lots of ideas for it - and was thinking of getting someone to invest with her and she would move into being an overall manager rather than doing all the day to day stuff, having first built up the business and reputation. She has certainly done the latter but it is hard to see who would want to invest in this sector at such a time.

Though in reality it is - if you can get in at the right price - quite a good time to develop the venue. Where we live will soon be in the Lake District National Park, tourism is expanding and there is some government investment in the area. But another year of fighting to keep the place alive with all this uncertainty, no support, price increases etc - no, she's had enough of that. Time to take stock and do what is best for her.

Every pub landlord/lady in UK must be thinking that at the moment. Sad times.

Every restaurant, cafe, travel business, hotel too. And many in the arts sector too.

It is indeed very sad.

I want to have a relaxing time at Xmas for her and her siblings above all. They have had a shitty two years. I am beyond depressed at this continuing.

Come to the Algarve; take your whole family.

It’s sunny and airy and nobody cares about the insane incompetence of Boris-land. There’s an element of surreal hysteria permeating the whole U.K. right now.

Seriously. My grief and stress collapsed the moment I exited Faro airport.

The hysteria is primarily driven by the dodgy data models and ministers too stupid to ask the right questions of the modellers. The scientists really will have a lot to answer for in the post-COVID inquiries, especially now that we know they are deliberately excluding likely but favourable scenarios from their forecasts.

I part ways from you a bit on this.

I think the modellers are pushing out what they are asked to, and they have simply taken an agnostic approach to what remains an unconfirmed variable (“mildness”).

There are, I think, several questions which I haven’t seen good responses on.

1. Why is there not more sensitivity analysis around the four or five key variables? Although it would simply increase the confidence intervals wider, it would give a fuller picture to decision makers.

2. How confident are modellers on the impact of further restrictions, given the known speed and infectiousness of Omicron.

3. The relationships between peak day versus total wave deaths, and the extent to which restrictions simply defer those deaths.

4. The impact on hospital capacity, and the impact on non-Covid health services

5. The cost of restrictions, which must be weighed against any impact.

So the mildness is now "confirmed" by a UK study looking into how Omicron operates within the respiratory system, it seems to have a big advantage in the upper tract (which is why we get coughs an sore throats) but also a big disadvantage in the lower respiratory tract (which is why few people in SA needed mechanical ventilation or oxygen). That finding was thrown out by the modellers and they used the assumption that Omicron manifests identical symptoms and severity to Delta.

1. It won't lead to decisions being made, so they don't do it.
2. They say it would halt it, but other models non-SAGE and non-UK disagree and say Omicron takes to well to the nasal pathways to avoid infections even with very low social interaction.
3. Interesting exercise, not carried out
4. They say it will be a disaster, but they also threw out the evidence that Omicron requires less intense use of healthcare services due to having a big disadvantage in lung tissue compared to delta, so who knows whether it actually will. Experiences in SA vs the SA delta wave are quite favourable, average length of stay is down, use of mechanical ventilation is down, need for oxygen is down and survival rates are up. That could be explained by lots of factors though.
5. The big one I guess, the Bank is no longer going to simply print Rishi £40bn per month of restrictions so the money will need to be raised through tax. Can the UK really afford an additional £40bn in tax for COVID measures to continue indefinitely?


The reason I'm unconvinced by the models is because we have to key observations from Omicron, vaccine efficacy is between 93% and 95% with three doses against severe disease and a UK study showing that it has a disadvantage in the lower respiratory tract and a big advantage in the upper respiratory tract. The SAGE models used modelled vaccine efficacy of 85% rather than the observed VE of 93-95% and as I said above they also gave Omicron identical disease characteristics to Delta, which we now know not to be true.

To me it feels like the scientists (or at least whoever has asked for these specific scenarios to be modelled) are trying to bounce the UK into a lockdown. Using modelled rather than observed VE is weird and throwing out favourable data and replacing it with unfavourable data is also weird. It also helps them get to the conclusion that we need to lockdown yesterday. Changing those inputs would result in a very large decrease all of their scary numbers, I wonder whether any of the Cabinet will force the issue and ask for the models to be redone with the correct inputs.

There will be a time lag between the results from models and the current knowledge. Take the UK study into how Omicron affects the upper respiratory system. You cannot just plug that into the model: you need to ask a whole series of questions. Is it relevant? What's the effect in people? Are there other effects? Is this study likely to be accurate? How do you account for this new information in the model? You then need run the models, discuss what the results, and disseminate.

The study was only reported on in the last day or so (following on from the HK study four or five days ago); it's a bit much to expect it to be factored into decision making immediately.

I think stating that scientists are trying to bounce the UK into a lockdown is unsubstantiated.

You plug it in as a scenario, though. I'm not saying that it should be used as the central forecast, but they should at least be saying "this could also happen according to our latest studies on Omicron symptoms".

In a situation that we're in with decision making needing the best available data I'd say that plugging in the latest and most up to date information into models is absolutely necessary. If we lockdown for whatever period at a cost of £8bn per week to the economy and, yes, it turns out that Omicron hospitalises at a significantly lower rate because of the mechanism outlined in multiple studies that were known at the time then it's on whoever decided to throw those findings out and use assumed rather than observed data.

But as I said: if it's the UK study I think you're referring to, then it was released (or reported) yesterday. The idea that it should have been in models and influencing decisions before today is, I think, rather optimistic. I mean, there's using up-to-date information, and then there's chucking anything at the models like a rabid monkey with diarrhoea.

Did you read Andy Cooke's posts from yesterday? I think they're very good, and on the optimistic side without going quite as far as you do against the scientists.

I don't think the criticism is directed at the scientists as much as the civil servants who brief them and the politicians who are ill-equipped to interrogate them.

FrancisUrquhart said:

Re lack of science in cabinet. My understanding is there a similar dearth across the civil service and it is something Patrick Valence in particular has been raising for ages. In a modern economy having sufficient expertise in science is crucial.

I guess the problem is say a STEM PhD from a top tier university is going to have a range of well paid opportunities, i doubt the civil service ranks very highly on that.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Does the virus take Christmas off?

If we need restrictions, put them in now. If we need them next week, do we really need them?

Beibheirli_C said:

eek said:

Beibheirli_C said:

IshmaelZ said:

How do you get electoral reform though? The AV referendum surely sets the rule that it is an issue on which therwilloftherpeople must be ascertained.

Just do it. No parliament can bind its successors

And no sane Government is going to call a referendum ever again.

Or least, if they do, set a benchmark like other countries do of 66% of the electorate

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1472933272598499331

Oh ffs