8-Dec-2021 : LAB: 40 / CON: 34 / LDEM: 10 / GRN: 4

[jib]

Danny

"The final outcome of all thos will be further distrust of politicians who have once again betrayed the people by lying to them. What sage told them not to do."

But I thought Sage were always wrong.

You are doing the hokey kokey on this issue and obviously don't have much idea.

Still believe in the Hastings epidemic (this time, 2 years ago)?

[Danny]

Zoe data yesterday R=1.2.

The pattern much the same as yesterday but continuing, thus the overall R which is calculated over a fortnight is dropping out older days when rise was lower.

London cases and 20-29 age group leading the rise. Rate of increase not increasing, as ever the theoretical exponential rise usually appears as sections of linear rise. The most likely explanation of that is exponential rise is short lived in any one location and after only a short time and low case numbers halts. The measured overall rise is always an average, so it seldom overall exhibits exponential rise. Such sections are most clear when confined to small areas and early stages.

The falling trend in 50+ age groups has ended. Nothing startling, but slow fall has become similar slow rise.

I don't like to rely on a couple of days data, but if I did then I would say the 20-29 rise slowed a little.

Comparing figures for this year and last, Zoe have recorded a lot more cases for delta than kent strains. Don't know whether that's real or an artefact somehow of sampling. As I mentioned befor, it's possible higher general immunity encourages more milder cases.

[eotw]

Dec 20, 2021 0:09:32 GMT @laszlo said:

2) No, there were no millions of peasants who died in hunger. It was about 600,000. The 6 million was invented so it would be a higher number than the Nazi holocaust. It included the number of people who would have been born in the next 100 years.

Lazlo, I may have misunderstood your post, but I have to take issue with your statement "It was about 600,000" as if that was a fact.

The length alone of the Wikipedia section Holodomor - Death Toll (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor#Death_toll) shows that there is no definitive answer.

[shevii]

barbara

I think it's a difficult one on EU elections because the EU is so vast and individual nations want to protect their own countries and what they are best at (ie Gernmany trade and manufacturing, UK financial services, France farming). I do think it is an EU flaw that never do the citizens of Europe get to vote on a manifesto that will get implemented (which would make engagement much higher I suspect). You could take policies on both sides of the political divide- refugees, trade deals, tariffs, green legislation, tax havens, H&S legislation, QE and tax rates and so on. Those are never debated and voted on at voter level.

Trade deal with Brazil, USA etc- never will the ordinary voter have a say- yes your PM that you elected will have a say and yes your PM you elected will have a say on the commission and EU parliament can block something but how many people voted in EU elections knowing what policy the bloc they were voting had on such issues? In fact last time around in the UK the EU elections were simply sending messages on brexit which was a domestic thing.

It's not necessarily "the EU's" fault just an example of how difficult it is to provide a democracy when so many people are involved. As we see in America they have similar problems with their version which relies on a consensus that isn't present there because of the polarised nature of their politics and the two chambers & president.

[Deleted]

Pleeeeeeeeeeease ............. can we have a separate thread for Covid?

I can find out most of what I need to know via the media and it is really boring having to scroll through all the speculation and squabbling.

[Deleted]

Dec 20, 2021 10:09:45 GMT shevii said:

just an example of how difficult it is to provide a democracy when so many people are involved.

One slight quibble with an otherwise sensible post.

imo the problem derives not from numbers of citizens ( India manages quite well), but from structures.

There is an abundance of stuff available online about the architecture, and Institutions of EU and to what extent they can be considered "democratic".

In the excellent WIKI on the topic you will find this :-

"The German Constitutional Court referred to a "structural democratic deficit" inherent in the construction of the European Union.[3] It found that the decision-making processes in the EU remained largely those of an international organisation, which would ordinarily be based on the principle of the equality of states and that the principle of equality of states and the principle of equality of citizens cannot be reconciled in a Staatenverbund.[3] In other words, in a supranational union or confederation (which is not a federal state) there is a problem of how to reconcile the principle of equality among nation states, which applies to international (intergovernmental) organisations, and the principle of equality among citizens, which applies within states.[4"

And I think your well made point about the distance between member state voters and the Union Executive, notwithstanding the EP is very well made.

My impression ,whenever I read up on this topic , is of a structure that has grown in a haphazard fashion over time .Constantly trying to reconcile the organisation's central conundrum-the balance between the "competence" ( to use an EU expression ! ) of the member states and their voters; and of The Union on behalf of those voters. And as more and more competence is sought by the former, the problem gets harder to solve-absent the dissolution of national parliaments ! ( which our old friend Jean-Claude Juncker famously mused publicly about)


The  Stability and Growth Pact is a fine example of this sticking plaster approach. A Fiscal Governance Rule applied at Union level to Member States who have Fiscal Sovereignty.  A Pact infamously ignored by the Union's largest and most powerful members when it suits them.

[somerjohn]

Shevii: I do think it is an EU flaw that never do the citizens of Europe get to vote on a manifesto that will get implemented (which would make engagement much higher I suspect). You could take policies on both sides of the political divide- refugees, trade deals, tariffs, green legislation, tax havens, H&S legislation, QE and tax rates and so on. Those are never debated and voted on at voter level.

I think the problem with your suggestion is that the EU works - and can probably only work - on the basis of consensus, or failing that, horse-trading that achieves buy-in from nations on the basis of giving ground in some areas in exchange for getting their way in others, to overall national benefit.

The moment control of the EU shifts to a party grouping with a clear manifesto, you set the stage for bitter nation vs centre disputes. Suppose a centre-right alliance wins the EU elections and sets about dismantling environmental protection, H&S, 3rd world trade benefits etc. How would LoC governments in individual member states respond? And vice versa with a left wing commission vs right wing governments.

It seems pretty telling to me that the anti-EU types who trot out the 'unelected bureaucrats' thing never spell out who exactly they would want to see elected. Do they want an EU government formed from the largest group in the EU parliament? That would surely raise howls of protest from the same people over a 'federal superstate' setting itself up. Do they want to see a directly elected European President? Again, that would surely raise accusations of going down the US federal route, leading to a United States of Europe.

When we see brexiteers specifying exactly what additional EU roles they want to see filled by election rather than appointment by governments; and when we see them campaigning for a directly elected UK head of state, and the banning of executive roles for unelected peers, and a written constitution for the UK placing limits on arbitrary executive power, then I will believe that brexiteers' criticism of the EU machinery is founded on something other than grabbing a convenient, if hypocritical, stick to beat the EU with.

[barbara]

Dec 20, 2021 10:09:45 GMT shevii said:

barbara

I think it's a difficult one on EU elections because the EU is so vast and individual nations want to protect their own countries and what they are best at (ie Gernmany trade and manufacturing, UK financial services, France farming). I do think it is an EU flaw that never do the citizens of Europe get to vote on a manifesto that will get implemented (which would make engagement much higher I suspect). You could take policies on both sides of the political divide- refugees, trade deals, tariffs, green legislation, tax havens, H&S legislation, QE and tax rates and so on. Those are never debated and voted on at voter level.

Trade deal with Brazil, USA etc- never will the ordinary voter have a say- yes your PM that you elected will have a say and yes your PM you elected will have a say on the commission and EU parliament can block something but how many people voted in EU elections knowing what policy the bloc they were voting had on such issues? In fact last time around in the UK the EU elections were simply sending messages on brexit which was a domestic thing.

It's not necessarily "the EU's" fault just an example of how difficult it is to provide a democracy when so many people are involved. As we see in America they have similar problems with their version which relies on a consensus that isn't present there because of the polarised nature of their politics and the two chambers & president.

Yes, I can see the points you are making. I don't disagree. Part of the problem with the referendum was that most remainers (including me) found it hard to defend the EU governance structures wholeheartedly. We accept it's not perfecta and I wasn't defending the EU at all.
I was just making the point that people who object to the 'unelected' parts of the EU seem to think it's ok for MPs who lose their seats because their electorate don't want them are not only given a lifelong place in our legislature at £300 a day but parachuted into key decision making roles in government. 
Either it's all not right or we're hypocrites.

[shevii]

somerjohn

Don't disagree with what you say around "consensus" although we accept it in this country where Greater Manchester or London is restricted or enhanced by national policy. I think it is less about consensus over the things you mentioned where at a national level we accept the "will of the people" but more about consensus around national interests like the things I mentioned on French farming or UK financial services. If one country is strong in these areas they aren't going to be happy with their base economy being wrecked because the voters of Europe want something different.

colin

I agree. EU started as a free trade union with things being agreed between national leaders as to any changes they wanted. We could blame Thatcher (to take the key period of PMs in control) if we didn't like something she agreed- probably Heath, Wilson, Callaghan, Major and Blair as well. That had a simple democracy to it. As you say it them grew and devolved powers to the commission but without ever being able to resolve the issue of whether it was still effectively national leaders in charge or voters. Plenty of issues over what "free trade" actually is that are difficult to resolve so lower H&S, quality standards, tax havens, even wages give countries inbuilt advantages and it is hard to untangle what is fair and not which I think is one aspect of why things have got more complicated on a simple decision to have "free trade". Ditto the freedom of movement and capital.

[steve]

Partygate

Well exactly.
What's the problem.
Can't an entitled child-grown-old plus his government and a few key family members mug off a nation of 66m people during a deadly pandemic once in a while?

What's the world coming to?

[crossbat11]

www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/20/gabriel-boric-vows-to-fight-privileges-of-the-few-as-chiles-premier

Where did it all go wrong, Jeremy? For the many and not the few, says Chile's newly elected President.

They did not listen, they did not understand in 2019, alas.

Jeremy should have been a contender. He should have been someone.

[Deleted]

barbara.

Could you cite the data/surve y which caused you to think that Leave Voters do not believe that UK House of Lords needs reforming.

[Danny]

Dec 20, 2021 9:02:12 GMT jib said:

But I thought Sage were always wrong.

You are doing the hokey kokey on this issue and obviously don't have much idea.

Sage are much like the Greek oracles of old.They seek to make statements which are factual but subject to interpretation.

Still believe in the Hastings epidemic (this time, 2 years ago)?

Absolutely. Correct unique symptoms of covid. initial case came from wuhan in china. And then very few cases when the full epidemic was happening everywhere else in april. Which magic protection of course failed when the kent strain came along and reinfected everyone. It's especially annoying to know you already had covid but are still locked up. I expect that's why government banned sale of antibody tests to the public, for fear of mass refusal to obey pointless restrictions.

Incidentally I was looking at the Zoe figures for 10-19 year olds this morning. About 20% of them had covid in the Delta wave outbreak on their numbers. They are also still looking like omicron must have got here October to gave started influencing figures last half of november. This disease has always been characterised by discovering it late, because for those most likely to catch it, it's just a bad cold.

[graham]

Dec 19, 2021 18:12:47 GMT turk said:

I think people should stop looking at brexit in terms of peoples political choices. Joining the union was voted in by the very people who voted it out 40 odd years later .Why that happened is the question.

A vote was never held to 'join' the Union.

[t7g4]

You only have to look at the low turnouts in the EU parliament elections to really see the lack of enthusiasm there was for the political side of the EU. I remember many moons ago, I delivered leaflets for the Lib Dems (2009) in East Dunbartonshire and i can assure you there was no little or no interest in these elections. I'm not suggesting people were anti-EU, but people just weren't engaged. Nobody knew who was the president of the EU; what his role etc was.

Oddly enough, the public are more aware of the EU since the 2016 vote.

[Deleted]

Dec 20, 2021 12:28:02 GMT crossbat11 said:

www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/20/gabriel-boric-vows-to-fight-privileges-of-the-few-as-chiles-premier

Where did it all go wrong, Jeremy? For the many and not the few, says Chile's newly elected President.

They did not listen, they did not understand in 2019, alas.

Jeremy should have been a contender. He should have been someone.

I know neither of us are Corbyn fans but even so it’s hard to believe that he could have done a worse job than this lot - unless he had made Piers a proper Peer and put him in charge of Covid of course. That could have had a bit of a downside...

However, on balance, and leaving his brother out of it, I think he could have pretty much destroyed Labour’s chances in subsequent elections for a very, very long time.

Alternative histories are quite fascinating.

[somerjohn]

Graham:
Joining the union was voted in by the very people who voted it out 40 odd years later. Why that happened is the question.

It might be a good idea for you to study the age breakdown of voting in the 1975 and 2016 referendums before repeating this statement.

Were you to do so, you would discover that the most eurosceptic age cohort in 1975 (those aged 18 to 29) were still the most eurosceptic in 2016 (by then aged at least 59- 70).

And, of course, your statement that "the union was voted in by the very people who voted it out 40 odd years later" overlooks the rather obvious point that a majority of those who voted in 2016 (ie those aged 18-59) were not part of the 1975 electorate.

[Deleted]

Dec 20, 2021 12:32:57 GMT colin said:

barbara .

Could you cite the data/surve y which caused you to think that Leave Voters do not believe that UK House of Lords needs reforming.

It seems there isn't much in it.  Most people want reform on both sides of the Brexit divide. 

"A similar proportion of Leavers and Remainers (76% respectively) said that the Lords should be either abolished or elected (in part/in full). Leavers were more likely to say the Lords should be abolished (36%) than Remainers (21%), while Remainers were more likely to say the Lords should be entirely elected (38%) than Leavers (24%)."

www.electoral-reform.org.uk/latest-news-and-research/media-centre/press-releases/poll-support-for-house-of-lords-at-rock-bottom-as-public-overwhelmingly-back-overhaul/

[graham]

Dec 20, 2021 12:58:04 GMT somerjohn said:

Graham:
Joining the union was voted in by the very people who voted it out 40 odd years later. Why that happened is the question.

It might be a good idea for you to study the age breakdown of voting in the 1975 and 2016 referendums before repeating this statement.

Were you to do so, you would discover that the most eurosceptic age cohort in 1975 (those aged 18 to 29) were still the most eurosceptic in 2016 (by then aged at least 59- 70).

And, of course, your statement that "the union was voted in by the very people who voted it out 40 odd years later" overlooks the rather obvious point that a majority of those who voted in 2016 (ie those aged 18-59) were not part of the 1975 electorate.

Those are Turk's comments - not mine!

I have specifically stated that there was no vote to join the EU.

[somerjohn]

graham

Apologies, I see you were quoting Turk in that remark.

However, also worth noting in respect of your "A vote was never held to 'join' the Union" that starting negotiations to join was the 1970 Tory manifesto:

If we can negotiate the right terms, we believe that it would be in the long-term interest of the British people for Britain to join the European Economic Community, and that it would make a major contribution to both the prosperity and the security of our country. The opportunities are immense. Economic growth and a higher standard of living would result from having a larger market.

Brexiteers often hold up the 2019 GE result as legitimising brexit, on top of the referendum. The same as happened in 1970/75, though in reverse order. And it's arguably better to first elect a government that wants to join, then confirm the terms by referendum when people know exactly what it is they're endorsing (or not). Doing it the other way round is to vote for a pig in a poke.

[Deleted]

alberto

Thanks. Great research.

[mercian]

Dec 20, 2021 8:31:18 GMT barbara said:

I know I'm late to the party here but this thing about unelected bureaucrats in the EU has always puzzled me.
First we have our own unelected bureaucrats in the senior ranks of the civil service.
2nd what is the House of Lords if not unelected. And many of these unelected appointees are given key posts in government: Lord Frost, Lord Bethel of the the lost phone PPE contracts shenanigans, Lord Goldsmith, who having been kicked out by his own electorate as an MP reappears as a minister in the Foreign Office. And it wouldn't take more than a few minutes searching to find loads more. Who elected them.
To paraphrase Mercian, it seems that if they're British it's OK, but if they're European it's an outrage. Either it's wrong or it's right for everyone

The point is that bureaucrats in the UK do not make policy, and we can kick out the people who do.  EU MEPs do not make policy and we have no direct control over those who do. I suppose that's ok for those who just want to be told what to do by the government, but I am quite fond of the idea that every few years we can throw the scoundrels (of whatever party) out.    Voters had no way of removing Kinnock or any other commissioners we had.

[mercian]

Dec 20, 2021 10:26:24 GMT @crofty said:

Pleeeeeeeeeeease ............. can we have a separate thread for Covid?

I can find out most of what I need to know via the media and it is really boring having to scroll through all the speculation and squabbling.

There is one, but they don't use it much. They'd rather bang on to the rest of us who aren't that interested.

[neilj]

Re the Downing Street Garden party
Number ten are now saying it was a work meeting as they were allegedly discussing work (yeah right), but at the same time they were allowed to drink alcohol as they were outside work hours.
That's cleared that up then...

[graham]

Dec 20, 2021 13:11:49 GMT somerjohn said:

graham

Apologies, I see you were quoting Turk in that remark.

However, also worth noting in respect of your "A vote was never held to 'join' the Union" that starting negotiations to join was the 1970 Tory manifesto:

If we can negotiate the right terms, we believe that it would be in the long-term interest of the British people for Britain to join the European Economic Community, and that it would make a major contribution to both the prosperity and the security of our country. The opportunities are immense. Economic growth and a higher standard of living would result from having a larger market.

Brexiteers often hold up the 2019 GE result as legitimising brexit, on top of the referendum. The same as happened in 1970/75, though in reverse order. And it's arguably better to first elect a government that wants to join, then confirm the terms by referendum when people know exactly what it is they're endorsing (or not). Doing it the other way round is to vote for a pig in a poke.

That is not quite how things panned out in the early to mid 1970s. The UK joined the EEC on 1st January 1973 , but no Referendum was held until the beginning of June 1975 - ie almost two and a half years later.

[Deleted]

Dec 20, 2021 13:18:22 GMT mercian said:

Dec 20, 2021 10:26:24 GMT @crofty said:

Pleeeeeeeeeeease ............. can we have a separate thread for Covid?

I can find out most of what I need to know via the media and it is really boring having to scroll through all the speculation and squabbling.

There is one, but they don't use it much. They'd rather bang on to the rest of us who aren't that interested.

It’s not that I’m not interested or concerned about it. I am just not interested in eternal exchanges of differing points of view. I don’t  see how they help anyone when we are perfectly able to look up the details for ourselves, particularly those that might relate where we actually live.

[barbara]

Dec 20, 2021 12:32:57 GMT colin said:

barbara .

Could you cite the data/surve y which caused you to think that Leave Voters do not believe that UK House of Lords needs reforming.

I didn't refer to leave voters.
The people who led the campaign to leave the EU and who created the slogan, "Take Back Control" and who objected to the unelected bureaucrats in the EU are the same people who are happy to continue stuffing the House of Lords with political cronies and supporters and give them jobs in the government as unelected bureaucrats.

[Deleted]

Dec 20, 2021 9:38:08 GMT eotw said:

Dec 20, 2021 0:09:32 GMT @laszlo said:

2) No, there were no millions of peasants who died in hunger. It was about 600,000. The 6 million was invented so it would be a higher number than the Nazi holocaust. It included the number of people who would have been born in the next 100 years.

Lazlo, I may have misunderstood your post, but I have to take issue with your statement "It was about 600,000" as if that was a fact.

The length alone of the Wikipedia section Holodomor - Death Toll (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor#Death_toll) shows that there is no definitive answer.

I really don't want to go further in it as the purpose of my original comment was to show that even the dictatorial regimes (even more those that are described as monolithic) have the problem of managing the centre of the political party in power and the centre of the people when they are different (especially when they swap position over a period).

Probably, I shouldn't have used this example in my first comment and should have chosen some more everyday political system.

But just to add for increasing the defence against confirmation bias. I made a hint to something in my response to @tankred

One of the emeritus professors of a leading US universities died and left his correspondence on academic matters (I cannot quite remember, but it was an enormous number). The university published them on their website (it has been removed, but it is available in the university's library, but only for certain purposes) and one of the correspondences was on the 1931-32 famine - it was the discussion on what would be the right number. Considering the standing of both professors, it was staggering. They were discussing how to get to 6 million (the 1921-22 Russian famine was much more severe, and it was estimated to have caused around 3 million death, but for that one we have some reliable American figures too, but not for the Ukrainian one). One of the other conversations was on the Gulag population - on that one now we have the documentation, and we know that the "normal" estimates in the 1980-90s academic literature is completely out of order (by about the factor of 3.5).

It is not really new - cf. the completely wrong number of witches executed in Britain in many decades of academic literature (by a factor of 11). Fortunately someone had enough time to go through all the court papers.

To All: apologies for the distraction caused by my comment (hopefully, did not cause it).

[mercian]

Re House of Lords: Reform UK who are the successors of the Brexit Party have a policy to reform the Lords.
"The Prime Minister enriching his brother, mates and personal donors by making them peers is indefensible. A properly representative second House is needed."

As with other parties I don't agree with everything they stand for, but they might get my vote next time.

[superted]

Redfield and Wilton poll out at 5pm. Suggestions online from reliable sources that it will be interesting but no indication in what way. Guess we will have to wait and see. It will be the first poll (i think) with fieldwork done post the by-election. That may or may not be significant, difficult to know what effect something like that has, my guess would be small, if anything significant shows up at all.