UK Politics: Fishing for a deal

[Maltaran]

I have a feeling that when Johnson goes there's at least a 50-50 chance that his successor will come from outside the Cabinet - someone like Jeremy Hunt, for example.

[IheartIheartTesla]

Right, the comparisons with Trump are a bit unfair to Johnson; for one he isnt a blithering idiot and second, he does ascribe to some sort of a political philosophy. Not to mention being steeped in the political tradition, so he does have n idea of how things work or to make them work. But, as I read this article: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/22/worlds-media-ask-how-it-went-so-wrong-for-plague-island-britain-covid, I was struck by the first few lines:

Quote

In the eyes of the world’s media, Britain – a “Plague Island” led by a man who thinks “optimism is a substitute for hard truths and proper management” – is currently getting a good lesson in “what ‘reclaiming sovereignty’ means”

Seemed to be a theme in many of the foreign publications.

[A wilding]

Personal opinion:

Johnson is a charming and charismatic man able to talk himself into or out of everything. All his life he has got away with making things up as he goes along, and he often does not bother to do his homework. He appears to be incapable of consistent hard work - I think his dismissal of Cameron as "a girly swot" is telling. He also appears to have little in the way of a moral compass, basically just some old fashioned racist, sexist and classist attitudes mixed in with a fair amount of narcissism.

That said, he is intelligent and I think cares about what history will say about him. That stops him from going too far off the rails.

[The Anti-Targ]

6 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Well , it didn't ever have a 'herd immunity' strategy, the initial strategy was to concentrate on preventing the virus from infecting the old and the vulnerable. As we've seen in other countries that has somehow proven to be a lot harder to do than it sounds. 

I find these statements to be a bit confusing. The criticism is that we've always acted too late, and yet at this stage it's hard to understand what acting earlier actually gets you. We are now in a perpetual cycle of locking down and opening up. The plan vaunted in the summer that we can lockdown, then use track and trace to catch any tiny outbreaks and nip them in the bud has proven to be unsuccessful, we simply can't contain the virus in that way. The localised lockdowns haven't really managed to work, the only real thing that seems to keep the virus at bay for any period of time is a total lockdown, and I think there is still a conversation to be had about the negative consequences of locking down and what that balance is. 

But saying we should have locked down earlier really only means that you then come out of lockdown earlier, and then repeat the cycle earlier. This looked like a really dubious strategy before the vaccine arrived, now I suspect the only strategy is to simply keep everyone in lockdown until Phase 1 of the vaccine is rolled out. Hopefully that will be soon.

I said mentality, not strategy. And protect the old and vulnerable and let everyone else do whatever they want is exactly a herd immunity mentality. So, thanks for confirming I guess. The failing of that plan of course is that everyone else is going to suffer at a certain rate.

The confusion you are feeling is that when you act late, you have to take stronger measures to achieve the same result than acting earlier. It appears the UK govt consistently implemented control measures that would have been effective if acted on 2 weeks to a month earlier when first being called for by the experts, but would not be effective at the time of implementation. And even then it is arguable that the control measures that were implemented were not what was being called for in the previous weeks. So, in early September when the epidemiological experts were saying the UK needs a 2-week lockdown to break the back of this rising number of cases, they were ignored and then when things got out of hand, the govt didn't really take the measures that were necessary for what was happening with the disease at the time. You can see from the epidemic curve that the measures the govt implemented dropped the number of cases to a low of 12,000 in a day and then they buttoned off and the predictable resurgence happened. This low was 10x the number of daily cases that the UK was seeing at the start of September and double the peak of the first wave. You can't even begin to call that effective.

I think a day late and a dollar (pound) short more or less characterises the UK govts response to COVID-19 this entire year.

There is nothing wrong with being in a perpetual cycle of lockdown and opening up during a pandemic, as long as you respond early and effectively to rising numbers / reappearance, to ensure the lockdown phase is short and less strict, and the open phase lasts longer. We're in a perpetual cycle of lockdown and opening up, but because our measures were effective and timely we've only had one lockdown since the first one in March even though we've had 2 reappearances of the disease in the community. The lockdown was short and limited in area (allbeit directly affecting 1/3 of the population).

Boris had to cancel people's Christmas plans (after telling you all that things would be fine for Christmas when they clearly were not). But it didn't need to be that way if he had acted as advised early in September.

[mormont]

1 hour ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

For one he isnt a blithering idiot

No, he really is a blithering idiot. Just not of the exact same type as Trump. He has a different schtick. He understands the value of self deprecation, aspires to being thought of as educated and a polymath (though in reality is nowhere near as smart or well read as he thinks he is, something many of his colleagues have in common: they’re walking condemnations of private schooling). But he’s definitely  an idiot. 

[Raja]

Excess deaths graphs speak for themselves. Grim.

[Which Tyler]

3 hours ago, mormont said:

No, he really is a blithering idiot. Just not of the exact same type as Trump. He has a different schtick. He understands the value of self deprecation, aspires to being thought of as educated and a polymath (though in reality is nowhere near as smart or well read as he thinks he is, something many of his colleagues have in common: they’re walking condemnations of private schooling). But he’s definitely  an idiot. 

I disagree here.

He's definitely a blitherer and a blusterer, but he's no idiot. He's intelligent, but far too lazy to do the background work or have any clue about the details. Which means that he's then making it up as he goes along and relying on his charisma wand schtick to dig himself out of the inevitable prat-falls.

He's very mentally agile, as he has to be to make the above work, but that counts very strongly against him being an idiot.

 

Comparison to Trump can be made in terms of being a lazy right wing populist who thrives on slogans and pandering to a base that crosses traditional party lines, having had a previous history in entertainment, and in being wholely unsuitable for his job. But he really isn't a mini-Trump.

 

IIRC John Oliver did a genuinely good portrait of him when he took over from May.

ETA: https://youtu.be/dXyO_MC9g3k

 

[williamjm]

9 minutes ago, Which Tyler said:

I disagree here.

He's definitely a blitherer and a blusterer, but he's no idiot. He's intelligent, but far too lazy to do the background work or have any clue about the details. Which means that he's then making it up as he goes along and relying on his charisma wand schtick to dig himself out of the inevitable prat-falls.

He's very mentally agile, as he has to be to make the above work, but that counts very strongly against him being an idiot.

In my experience being intelligent and being a blithering idiot are not mutually exclusive traits.

[The Anti-Targ]

Ding ding! Our Europe team has just published its animal product trade requirements for the UK today. That means we got Brexit done, now it's your turn.

[The Anti-Targ]

1 hour ago, williamjm said:

In my experience being intelligent and being a blithering idiot are not mutually exclusive traits.

I think Tywin Lannister used an apt description in relation to Cersei: possessed of a certain low cunning. Seems applicable to Boris.

[Ser Reptitious]

6 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I think Tywin Lannister used an apt description in relation to Cersei: possessed of a certain low cunning. Seems applicable to Boris.

Apologies for the nitpick, but I'm fairly sure it was Tyrion who thought that. Anyway, I agree that seems like a decent comparison (except that Cersei can also be quite vicious, something that I don't think that, for all his numerous other faults, normally applies to Boris). 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

6 hours ago, Chataya de Fleury said:

I’m just going to take the time to admit something right here.

I had a dream a couple nights ago that I was Boris Johnson’s new girlfriend, and I was wondering if I could get him to take Carrie Symonds back. Also, in my dream, his romantic overtures were not that impressive.

I am very sorry to have left you with a nightmare, but it was quite a strong impression. I believe I’d been reading quite a bit about the UK coronavirus response the night before.

 

So you are saying Johnson is a male succubus? Always thought succubus are by definition female. Anyway, the more you know. For future use, if you want to get rid of him, dream of giving birth to his child. That's apparently the way to dispell him. As long as you don't marry him.

[The Anti-Targ]

1 hour ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

So you are saying Johnson is a male succubus? Always thought succubus are by definition female. Anyway, the more you know. For future use, if you want to get rid of him, dream of giving birth to his child. That's apparently the way to dispell him. As long as you don't marry him.

I believe the male version is incubus. Both are demon sexual predators that do you in your sleep. I don't think either are terribly bothered by consent, but at least a succubus turns up on your dream and goes through the motions of seducing you. Though no doubt that's only part of the succubus mythology because of course no man can ever be raped.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

I thought that was a meh Rock Band from California.

Anyway, you had me bothered enough to do a goole/wikipedia search. Apparently current research still considers King James theory as still valid. It's basically one demonic entity, that appears as either female (succubus) or male (incubus). The more you know.

[Heartofice]

Apparently a deal is almost done! It could be today!

.. except there is a disagreement over batteries now. Sigh.

[SeanF]

26 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Apparently a deal is almost done! It could be today!

.. except there is a disagreement over batteries now. Sigh.

It seems to be imminent now.

To use a wrestling analogy, it's a case of "You grunt, I'll groan."

[Heartofice]

16 minutes ago, SeanF said:

It seems to be imminent now.

To use a wrestling analogy, it's a case of "You grunt, I'll groan."

I'm hearing it is done now. So thats a maybe.

[The Anti-Targ]

13 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

I thought that was a meh Rock Band from California.

Anyway, you had me bothered enough to do a goole/wikipedia search. Apparently current research still considers King James theory as still valid. It's basically one demonic entity, that appears as either female (succubus) or male (incubus). The more you know.

I mean, if you are going to align yourself with a rapey demon you can't expect more than that. Lucky to rise to the status of meh.

I think at this stage, as long as both the EU and UK can go back to their respective ratification bodies and sell the result as a win (a back down by the other side), it should get through.

What the heck is Britain going to do with 80% more of its fishing resource? According to one Youtubist the current catch quota owned by British fishing companies uses 50% immigrant labour to catch. So if that's the case there are no additional British jobs to be had out on the seas, because UK companies can't even employ enough Brits for their catch as it is. Onshore processing though, there's possibly a case to be made that more jobs for Brits can be created by landing more fish, but how much spare processing capacity is there in the industry without having to build more processing plants? You probably won't be able to make use of the extra catch allocation for a few years, so why the need to potentially scuttle a deal over a resource you probably can't exploit right now? Of course if you don't catch those fish for a few years it will mean the fishery becoming more plentiful, which is good for the ocean ecosystem. So, accidental environmentalism?

[mormont]

11 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Onshore processing though, there's possibly a case to be made that more jobs for Brits can be created by landing more fish, but how much spare processing capacity is there in the industry without having to build more processing plants?

I guarantee you no UK worker wants to do fish processing anyway. Firms will have to import labour. Fishing is the dumbest shibboleth the Tories still have, after Brexit. It’s a similarly irrational, primarily cultural obsession with a relic of the past .

[Heartofice]

17 minutes ago, mormont said:

I guarantee you no UK worker wants to do fish processing anyway. Firms will have to import labour. Fishing is the dumbest shibboleth the Tories still have, after Brexit. It’s a similarly irrational, primarily cultural obsession with a relic of the past .

I’m sure the same comment applies to Macron in that case.