UK Politics - Not a Special Relationship

[DaveSumm]

13 minutes ago, Raja said:

For those who have a hard time imagining what the illness is like/ haven't been close to it

Kind of related, I’m actually a little concerned that there’ll be a significant period of time where the death rate drops due to a vaccination roll out to the elderly/vulnerable, but the virus is still very much out there. Tolerance for restrictive measures will be very low when there’s a much smaller accompanying death toll to point to, and all my mates will be saying “you coming up the pub yea?”, cos they’ll all be open. But as you’ve pointed out, at any age you really, really don’t want this virus. I hope they can very rapidly vaccinate adults as well, to counteract this and keep ahead of a third wave.

[Werthead]

Owch. Boris asked Sir Alex Allan to change his report to say there was no clear evidence of bullying by Patel. Allan refused. He then told Boris he'd quit if Boris tried to overrule his conclusions, and did exactly that.

This is The Times reporting this as well, usually very broadly supportive of a Conservative government but clearly not at this moment.

2 hours ago, DaveSumm said:

Kind of related, I’m actually a little concerned that there’ll be a significant period of time where the death rate drops due to a vaccination roll out to the elderly/vulnerable, but the virus is still very much out there. Tolerance for restrictive measures will be very low when there’s a much smaller accompanying death toll to point to, and all my mates will be saying “you coming up the pub yea?”, cos they’ll all be open. But as you’ve pointed out, at any age you really, really don’t want this virus. I hope they can very rapidly vaccinate adults as well, to counteract this and keep ahead of a third wave.

Yes, this is a significant problem. Hancock today was saying they want to do far better than the "one million vaccinations a week" target they threw out a few weeks back and try to vaccinate the entire at-risk and adult population of the UK by the end of the spring, which is hugely ambitious but extremely impressive if they can manage it.

There was an American study that showed the average number of years lost per death to the virus is 11 years. In Italy it may be as high as 14 years. There seems to be a lot of people responding of news of people getting COVID at 65 or 70 and dropping dead of it a bit too lightly, when that person might have lived for another 15 or even 30 years for all they knew. And the number of middle-aged and even young people dying, though relatively small, is still large enough to drag the average considerably down from the very large numbers of very elderly and already-sick dying.

[Which Tyler]

Just got off my weekly family Zoom. Not a happy one this week.

 

Sister had a "chat" with her MP a couple of days ago.

For background, Sis is 54, her immune system is essentially shot and she's been around 1/4 lung capacity since her late teens, and until her kids left home she'd typically spend 3-4 months of the year in hospital, with frequent trips to ICU. She hasn't left the house since February - during which she hasn't been in the same room as her husband.

Her husband is a dentist - front line health worker, and will be handing out vaccines once authorised.

Healthy 65 year olds are a higher priority for vaccine than people like Sis because "you're not leaving the house at the moment". Neither Sis nor Hubby are eligible for testing absent symptoms. MP signed off with "I take the train to London every week and have mild asthma, we're all in this together".

 

 

 

My bbrothe works with a lady - 27F who's husband had a heart transplant 8-9 months ago, is on the strongest immune-suppressants going. Husband lost his business. They live in a small 1-bed flat and simply cannot live separately.

She has to go to work and teach 150+ snotty-nosed kids every day. She cannot be furloughed, she cannot take paid time off work. School has allowed that they could arrange for her to have the entire academic year off - unpaid.

Low priority for vaccine and ineligible for testing absent symptoms.

She's late home after work every day as she needs to compose herself and confront her fear as to whether she's been exposed that day.

The headmaster spoke to their MP on her behalf. "Some people just have to suck it up".

[Derfel Cadarn]

A lot of MP’s should be strung up from the nearest lamp-post.

[Which Tyler]

11 minutes ago, Derfel Cadarn said:

A lot of MP’s should be strung up from the nearest lamp-post.

I'm sure you'd be amazed to hear what party both MPs are...

(Hint: they dislike being called "nasty" or "scum")

[polishgenius]

 

 

 

[Which Tyler]

Good thread by George Monbiot

Sorry, dunno how to do thread reader stuff

[Heartofice]

40 minutes ago, Which Tyler said:

Good thread by George Monbiot

Sorry, dunno how to do thread reader stuff

Absolute garbage by Monbiot as usual. The man hasn't got a clue about anything.

[Liffguard]

56 minutes ago, Which Tyler said:

Good thread by George Monbiot

Sorry, dunno how to do thread reader stuff

I think this is pretty spot-on. The primary architects of Brexit haven't been particularly coy about their desire to turn post-Brexit UK into a low-regulation financial playground.

[Werthead]

15 hours ago, Which Tyler said:

Healthy 65 year olds are a higher priority for vaccine than people like Sis because "you're not leaving the house at the moment". Neither Sis nor Hubby are eligible for testing absent symptoms. MP signed off with "I take the train to London every week and have mild asthma, we're all in this together".

Despite initial concerns, it turns out that asthma is not a particular risk factor increase for COVID, unlike having severely reduced lung capacity, so that comparison is altogether irrelevant.

7 minutes ago, Liffguard said:

I think this is pretty spot-on. The primary architects of Brexit haven't been particularly coy about their desire to turn post-Brexit UK into a low-regulation financial playground.

Monbiot's analyses are usually solid, but a little bit Captain Obvious. One interesting point is that Brexit does not necessarily lead inevitably to the type of catastrophe he predicts, only a right-wing, faux-capitalist Brexit of the kind we've been delivered thusfar. A moderated Brexit would be nowhere near as damaging, but that was not on the agenda.

His analysis of capitalism fails to mention that the form of modern faux-capitalism is in itself a betrayal of the concept: capital moving around and generating useful, productive income spent on wages, new technology investment and research, even if wholly in the private sector, is still a good thing. The modern form seems more intent on hiding money in offshore accounts and locking it up in empty luxury flats (or property in general) where it is not being productive at all and in fact removing it from being more broadly useful in any manner whatsoever.

[Liffguard]

51 minutes ago, Werthead said:

One interesting point is that Brexit does not necessarily lead inevitably to the type of catastrophe he predicts, only a right-wing, faux-capitalist Brexit of the kind we've been delivered thusfar. A moderated Brexit would be nowhere near as damaging, but that was not on the agenda.

I agree, there's nothing inherent to Brexit as a concept that requires it to be pursued in the manner that the Tories have pursued it. I can imagine several unobjectionable Brexit scenarios, and some I might potenially actively support. But none of them were ever realistically on the table under our current leadership.

 

Quote

His analysis of capitalism fails to mention that the form of modern faux-capitalism is in itself a betrayal of the concept:

I think it's less of a betrayal, more of an inevitable consequence, but that's a different discussion for a different day.

[Heartofice]

42 minutes ago, Liffguard said:

I agree, there's nothing inherent to Brexit as a concept that requires it to be pursued in the manner that the Tories have pursued it. I can imagine several unobjectionable Brexit scenarios, and some I might potenially actively support. But none of them were ever realistically on the table under our current leadership.

What are these?

[Chaircat Meow]

1 hour ago, Liffguard said:

I think this is pretty spot-on. The primary architects of Brexit haven't been particularly coy about their desire to turn post-Brexit UK into a low-regulation financial playground.

I think it is almost totally spot off, pseudo-Marxist junk about nationalism being a tool of sinister capitalist forces who have a clever agenda to extract more surplus/evade more taxes.  It is laughable.  I would write a critique but there isn't actually anything there to criticise,  he produces no evidence or coherent argument at all.

Still, the key fallacy seems to be the need to find someone, or some group, with an intelligent purpose in pursuing Brexit. Monbiot is Marxoid enough to think the tides of history can't be governed by phenomena such as nationalism or accident, historical explanation has to involve some gurgling about the extractive class. 

In truth though, the primary architects of Brexit have largely not had a clue what they were doing and said whatever came into their heads to get people to agree to leave: Norway, Switzerland, Canada, Turkey Australia, Narnia, you name it. Johnson is enticed by no deal because he gets misty eyed about regulatory sovereignty for essentially romantic/nationalist reasons. The backbenchers who egg him on, like Francois, Baker et al are largely the same.  They want it because they want it, not because they have any specific they want to do with it when they get it. Anything specific they have said they'd like to do with it is disposable; Brexit is not a means to an end, it is the end itself. 

 

 

[Heartofice]

9 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

I think it is almost totally spot off, pseudo-Marxist junk about nationalism being a tool of sinister capitalist forces who have a clever agenda to extract more surplus/evade more taxes.  It is laughable.  I would write a critique but there isn't actually anything there to criticise,  he produces no evidence or coherent argument at all.

That is Monbiot all over. He is a conspiracy theorist who is somehow given credibility by writing in the Guardian. That entire thread was lacking in any sort of evidence or detail to back up anything he said. He pulls out Steve Bannon for some reason, makes broad laughable claims about capitalism, he connects a series of dots without reason, and gets 2+2=5. How does anyone go through that thread and nod along taking any of it seriously? A bigger question is why so many people on this board link to his articles. 

[maarsen]

1 hour ago, Chaircat Meow said:

I think it is almost totally spot off, pseudo-Marxist junk about nationalism being a tool of sinister capitalist forces who have a clever agenda to extract more surplus/evade more taxes.  It is laughable.  I would write a critique but there isn't actually anything there to criticise,  he produces no evidence or coherent argument at all.

Still, the key fallacy seems to be the need to find someone, or some group, with an intelligent purpose in pursuing Brexit. Monbiot is Marxoid enough to think the tides of history can't be governed by phenomena such as nationalism or accident, historical explanation has to involve some gurgling about the extractive class. 

In truth though, the primary architects of Brexit have largely not had a clue what they were doing and said whatever came into their heads to get people to agree to leave: Norway, Switzerland, Canada, Turkey Australia, Narnia, you name it. Johnson is enticed by no deal because he gets misty eyed about regulatory sovereignty for essentially romantic/nationalist reasons. The backbenchers who egg him on, like Francois, Baker et al are largely the same.  They want it because they want it, not because they have any specific they want to do with it when they get it. Anything specific they have said they'd like to do with it is disposable; Brexit is not a means to an end, it is the end itself. 

 

 

Canada just announced a free trade deal with Britain but no details released yet. The fly in the ointment is that under the new NAFTA, the US can vet any deal Mexico or Canada reach with other countries. Don't expect much from it.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

On 11/21/2020 at 3:01 PM, mormont said:

* even if they exempt the NHS, think of how many other key workers in the public sector got us through this. Care home workers. Council staff. Teachers. All getting nothing.

Well, we can get into the disucssion about wages and distributing wealth, in relation to the benefit for society.

I have yet to see somebody claiming Investment Bankers, or Hedgefund managers are essential workers.

 

[Spockydog]

1 hour ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Well, we can get into the disucssion about wages and distributing wealth, in relation to the benefit for society.

 

Speaking of which... 

 

 

[Werthead]

3 hours ago, Chaircat Meow said:

Still, the key fallacy seems to be the need to find someone, or some group, with an intelligent purpose in pursuing Brexit. Monbiot is Marxoid enough to think the tides of history can't be governed by phenomena such as nationalism or accident, historical explanation has to involve some gurgling about the extractive class. 

In truth though, the primary architects of Brexit have largely not had a clue what they were doing and said whatever came into their heads to get people to agree to leave: Norway, Switzerland, Canada, Turkey Australia, Narnia, you name it. Johnson is enticed by no deal because he gets misty eyed about regulatory sovereignty for essentially romantic/nationalist reasons. The backbenchers who egg him on, like Francois, Baker et al are largely the same.  They want it because they want it, not because they have any specific they want to do with it when they get it. Anything specific they have said they'd like to do with it is disposable; Brexit is not a means to an end, it is the end itself. 

I think this is partially right: some people see Brexit as an end in itself (and the political argument for Brexit was always primarily rooted in ending division in the Conservative Party). We know Johnson had no ideological commitment to Brexit whatsoever and wavered on supporting or opposing it, almost coming down to a coin toss which way he went in. Certainly lots of Tory Brexiters also didn't really have a clue what to do with it, other than that being in Brexit was "bad" in some fashion, and there's a a fair few Tories in favour of any kind of Brexit that allows them to shut up about it, say job done and move on to anything else.

However, there are also some people like Cummings who did have an ideological belief in Brexit and how Britain could benefit from it afterwards. The fact his beliefs are not particularly rooted in factual reality (the Silicon Thames Valley is not going to happen, but Singapore-on-Sea might) is not really germane, he did have at least a vision of post-Brexit Britain. People like Gove seem to have picked up on some of those ideas.

Farage's viewpoint seems to be completely opportunistic: he initially campaigned for a light Brexit and when that drifted into view, he shifted gears and went for a MOR Brexit and when that became more realistic he changed gears again and campaigned for the hardest of all possible Brexits. I don't think this is particularly because he believes anything he says, but because it furthers the cause of getting him on the telly as much as possible (hence also his parading around the USA for no readily explainable reason). One wonders the degree to which the PM is currently considering No Deal is because if he doesn't, Farage's next political party will be campaigning to split the Tory vote and pull out of whatever deal he negotiates, regardless of how weighted in Britain's favour it is. Of course, if Johnson goes for No Deal and economic chaos results, no doubt Farage would simply argue that this was also Johnson's fault as well.

[Alarich II]

There's a saying that those who forge their swords to ploughshares will be ploughing for someone else. And sometimes Europeans have a regrettable tendency to ignore that and pretend that we have no enemies, or if we do that they are only rationally defending their interests and as long as we don't interfere, we'll stay safe. And especially if you are sitting on an island on the fringes of Europe, Russia for example is not on the same threat level as it is in Estonia or Latvia, especially with a nuclear deterrent. But a nuclear deterrent is not going to deter others - especially likewise armed countries - to slowly chip away from the fringes until the deterrent is only defending the bare bones of a carcass. And given Britains geostrategic location, it is hard to argue against the need for a modern and effective army for any government.

However, the nature of military spending in most Western countries is defensive in that it serves to defend an aquired status in terms of prosperity and freedom for it's people, so when you reduce the latter, you are effectively undermining the justification for the former. And that is IMO essentially the Tory dilemma; increasing the military budget while at the same time reducing social spending, will beg the question what kind of country and society you are actually defending. Of course it is a question of poitical priorities and that's why there are elections, so to a certain degree I'm thinking okay, this is what you voted for, so take at least the gunships and make sure their planning and procurement will not be fucked up by incompetence and corruption. But in the long term, I believe that security and stability also relies on a prosperous and just society, and that requires at least as much investment as the military, especially when you have a global pandemic that's accelerating the divisive tendencies within. And it is lamentable that this conservative party seems to think of security only in military terms while reducing security on all other fronts.

[mormont]

Going back to the earlier discussion about David Goodhart's appointment to the EHRC panel, another appointment to the same panel is Jessica Butcher. Read a little about her.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/nov/22/new-equalities-commissioner-attacked-modern-feminism-and-metoo

Quote

She added: “Working-class girls have been deprived of jobs that they love such as Page 3 girls and [Formula One] grid girls because other women disapprove of them. What happened to ‘my body, my choice’?”

There's a lot more in there, but the incredible - and apparently oblivious - class prejudice in that comment stands out. People talk about intersectionality: this is a textbook example of an intersectional feminism failure.

Looking at the two appointments together, they confirm what we already knew - the government intend to impose upon the EHRC an ideological framework in which equalities issues are largely a fuss over nothing. It's not as if that were ever a secret. But it's a disgrace just the same.