Well if 52% was considered a ringing endorsement in 2016, why shouldn't 57% be considered a sufficient majority against in 2019?
Because that 57% didn't vote as a block. It's patently obvious that a referendum with just 2 options is totally different to an election with goodness knows how many different options.
Because while our plucky British manufacturers can manufacture ventilators out of thin air and plucky Britishness in no time, you still have to check that those new designs are safe for patients.
Allegedly we don't need as many, but I should double-check my sources before I believe that.
ACME CORPORATION UK PLC! INVENTING NEW SAFETY CRITICAL DEVICES ON A SIXPENCE! POWERED BY CLASSIC BRITISH INVENTIONEERING AND A DOSE OF BRITISH PLUCK!!!1!!!
Yes, Raab's not allowed to make any major decisions, and Boris isn't coming back on Monday after all according to "No. 10", so saying Cummings is the entire Cabinet as well as PM is not too far from the truth.
The Tories, as I said earlier, have a large majority, so they can do what they like for the next five years. Well, four years seven months, now.
I *did* notice David Allen Green reacting to the Sunday Times article by saying there might be a basis for charges of misconduct in public office. He was convinced there was no way the Supreme Court would rule against the prorogation of Parliament, so that's the level of skepticism he has about legal solutions to political problems. For him to say something like that is significant.
If he's on the public payroll, yes, I think he does. If he's paid by the Conservative Party, probably not.
There are different rules for political advisers about neutrality, but misfeasance is about integrity, abuse of office, rather than political bias - otherwise all ministers would be permanently guilty..
The thing about misconduct in public office isn't about Cummings as an individual, but about the entire way the Govt handled the Corona crisis, as laid out in the Sunday Times.
He wrote:
"...some emerging news is, on face of it, in territory of misfeasance / misconduct in public office - which is both a criminal offence (ie, prosecutions) and a tort (getting sued)
"Would not put it any higher than that, but some serious stuff"
Cummings may be many things, but at least he "gets" the importance of science. To be blunt, DC is better qualified to be a member of the SAGE group than the head of Public Health England.
Cummings may be many things, but at least he "gets" the importance of science. To be blunt, DC is better qualified to be a member of the SAGE group than the head of Public Health England.
He really doesn’t - he is a humanities graduate with a STEM fetish who has extolled climate denialism.
The chances of him attending the meeting without waxing lyrical about his pet topics are fairly close to zero.
He has a BA in History, and has no scientific qualifications.
The head of Public Health England does not appear to be a member of SAGE. The three PHE members of SAGE are:
Sharon Peacock, a Professor of public health and microbiology
Maria Zambon, an experienced clinical virologist with a related PhD
Meera Chand, a consultant microbiologist
Cummings is like at least 1 in 10 dudes I worked with in the tech industry. This type genuinely believes that boasting is a better qualification than anything academia could offer them. A common example is a guy who drops out of a theoretical physics BSc to become a conspiracy theorist. It's unusual for this type to even have a first degree, as most of them haven't ever been through a critique and it shows.
I do not know any scientists who think highly of Cummings, or believe he understands science at all.
Does anyone think highly of Dread Cthulhu Dominic Cummings, apart from the overgrown schoolboy with Bad Hair who used to be (for a brief time) our Prime Monster Minister?
Cummings may be many things, but at least he "gets" the importance of science. To be blunt, DC is better qualified to be a member of the SAGE group than the head of Public Health England.
Is the right wing press alleging that the head of Public Health England doesn't get the importance of science now? Does that mean they're trying to fit Public Health England up as the scapegoat for all this?
Not helped by people failing to understant the difference between choices and decisions made by the department of health & social care, the NHS as a whole, NHS England and its devolved equivalents and Public Health England, and various different scientific advisory committees.
Cummings may be many things, but at least he "gets" the importance of science. To be blunt, DC is better qualified to be a member of the SAGE group than the head of Public Health England.
No, @TheOrganist. If you try to read any of his blogs, you'll realise that 'tripe-hound' is being grossly over complementary towards his mental abilities.
Cummings makes mouth noises in the direction of science. Unfortunately he wouldn't recognise it if it carried out a double-blind placebo-controlled study on the end of his nose.
Cummings may be many things, but at least he "gets" the importance of science. To be blunt, DC is better qualified to be a member of the SAGE group than the head of Public Health England.
Is the right wing press alleging that the head of Public Health England doesn't get the importance of science now? Does that mean they're trying to fit Public Health England up as the scapegoat for all this?
I don't know. I only ask because PHE has a CEO who has only ever worked in NHS admin since he was a teenager. However, he does have a track record for cock-ups such as this and his time at a mental health trust before that wasn't exactly a resounding success, leaving his successor to pick up the pieces.
Cummings is like at least 1 in 10 dudes I worked with in the tech industry. This type genuinely believes that boasting is a better qualification than anything academia could offer them.
Very accurate of Cummings, at least as far as it appears from this distance. Academia neither could or would offer him anything
Cummings may be many things, but at least he "gets" the importance of science. To be blunt, DC is better qualified to be a member of the SAGE group than the head of Public Health England.
Is the right wing press alleging that the head of Public Health England doesn't get the importance of science now? Does that mean they're trying to fit Public Health England up as the scapegoat for all this?
I don't know. I only ask because PHE has a CEO who has only ever worked in NHS admin since he was a teenager. However, he does have a track record for cock-ups such as this and his time at a mental health trust before that wasn't exactly a resounding success, leaving his successor to pick up the pieces.
Well if 52% was considered a ringing endorsement in 2016, why shouldn't 57% be considered a sufficient majority against in 2019?
“Sufficient” is not “vast”.
My objection is to your suggestion that the vast majority - virtually everyone in the country - would have rejected Brexit had they had a full awareness of exactly what would transpire afterwards. Because that’s demonstrably not the case.
Enough people may well have changed their minds to shift the referendum result, but that’s not the same thing at all.
You need to accept that about half of the country disagrees with you about this. Not because they’re stupid or uninformed, just because they have a different opinion informed by a different set of values.
My objection is to your suggestion that the vast majority - virtually everyone in the country - would have rejected Brexit had they had a full awareness of exactly what would transpire afterwards. Because that’s demonstrably not the case.
No it's not. It is not demonstrably not the case. Still a lot of people don't realise what the now very real possibility of No Deal will look like. In a year's time you might be able to say this but I very much doubt it. I maintain my conjecture that the majority of Brexit supporters voted for something very different to what they're getting.
Not because they’re stupid or uninformed, just because they have a different opinion informed by a different set of values.
"Different set of values" is the most casual way of saying "xenophobic selfish assholes" I've heard yet. Seems a bit misleading when coded that way, don't you think?
Well if 52% was considered a ringing endorsement in 2016, why shouldn't 57% be considered a sufficient majority against in 2019?
“Sufficient” is not “vast”.
My objection is to your suggestion that the vast majority - virtually everyone in the country - would have rejected Brexit had they had a full awareness of exactly what would transpire afterwards. Because that’s demonstrably not the case.
My comment about the vast majority would have rejected Leave had they known exactly what sort of clusterfuck we now have was conjectural, clearly in 2015/6 all we had were the predictions of practically every expert that were dismissed as "project fear" without being properly addressed by the Leave campaign - predictions that were generally conservative, and are beginning to look good compared to the mess we're actually in (for a start I don't think anyone coupled a stupid idea such as a very hard no-deal Brexit with a totally incompetent government trying to get it done).
My "sufficient" comment was just related to the number of people who voted against this insanity the last time that was part of the choice put before the people. I do admit that the proportion of the electorate who voted for the Conservatives despite the total unsuitability of Johnson to lead a conga let alone a government does seriously erode my faith in the people of England to act sanely.
You need to accept that about half of the country disagrees with you about this. Not because they’re stupid or uninformed, just because they have a different opinion informed by a different set of values.
Well, if you don't mind I'm going to keep calling those who accept the values of racism, xenophobia, islamophobia stupid. If generous, uninformed. If anyone went into the voting booth and put their cross next to the Conservative candidate then either they didn't know what they were doing (uninformed) or agreed with policies such as the institutional murder of the poor, a "hostile environment" for anyone not deemed sufficiently English, creeping privatisation of the NHS, etc (all policies which can only be called stupid) ... and, of course, the no-deal clusterfuck of leaving the EU such that we wouldn't get medicines we need, wouldn't work with many of the best researchers in the world on solving the problems of our age, spend vastly more money on making up for the losses to our economy caused by the imposition of customs checks and the loss of free movement of labour, etc (which go so far beyond stupid it's difficult to find a word for it).
BoJo and his toadies can Do No Wrong, so who else is there, given the shambles we're in?
I would certainly have expected the actual death toll to feature more heavily in headlines than it seems to.
I don't think the FT estimate of 40 000 dead got much publicity. I suppose the push now for business is to lift the lockdown. Yesterday's figure of 800 dead would amount to 25 000 per month, and that leaves out care homes, where are we going?
BoJo and his toadies can Do No Wrong, so who else is there, given the shambles we're in?
I would certainly have expected the actual death toll to feature more heavily in headlines than it seems to.
I don't think the FT estimate of 40 000 dead got much publicity. I suppose the push now for business is to lift the lockdown. Yesterday's figure of 800 dead would amount to 25 000 per month, and that leaves out care homes, where are we going?
Sure but even on the reduced estimates I'd have expected to see 10K and 20K deaths being headlined prominently in the press.
Plus you have disenfranchisement of voters, that the number of people actually voting is reducing over time, even considering that percentage is calculated using the number of votes cast against the number of people on the electoral register: 67.3% of those on the electoral roll cast a vote in the 2019 election.
New figures from the Electoral Commission show 17% of eligible voters in Great Britain are not registered at their current address, representing as many as 9.4 million people – leaving millions at risk of being unable to vote in a snap election. “This is no basis for fair elections and represents a hidden crisis,” the ERS say.
11% of register entries also have ‘major errors’, affecting up to 5.6 million people – with another 9% having ‘minor errors’. That means one in five entries are wrong in some way.
The problem is especially bad for a General Election: Parliamentary registers were only 85% complete (i.e. 15% of eligible people are missing) and 89% accurate in the Electoral Commission’s 2018 report.
That article continues to discuss those not included in the electoral register: unsurprisingly the young and BME are underrepresented and the white home-owning population are most likely to be included - another likely distortion of the voting pattern. Don't you remember the Labour push to change the election date to try and include student votes and the debates about that December election date trying to boost the Tory chances? And the issues raised about voter ID which will further disenfranchise voters?
Others are further disenfranchised by the first past the post electoral system because, for someone like me living in a safe Tory seat, my vote is worthless; whoever I vote for, it won't change anything. This isn't just me grumping, the Electoral Reform review of the 2019 election as reported in The Independent in March 2020 also comments on the phenomenon, (link),
The survey by the Electoral Reform Society (ERS) ... claims that 14.5 million people, or 45 per cent of all voters, cast a vote for a non-elected candidate.
“Of course, not every candidate or party can or should secure representation, but first past the post is brutal in denying millions of voters any representation at all,” the report said.
In their audit of the election — Voters Left Voiceless — and using data from pollsters YouGov, the ERS added that nearly one in three voters, or 32 per cent, “held their nose” and voted tactically, instead of choosing their preferred party or candidate.
How many voters in safe seats were part of the 32.3% on the electoral roll who didn't vote at all? Because there was no point?
This is a belated answer to @Marvin the Martian, belated because I needed to take the time to find the evidence to back up my response.
TL:DR There are queries around the assertions that any vote is as cut and defined as is being claimed.
... You need to accept that about half of the country disagrees with you about this. Not because they’re stupid or uninformed, just because they have a different opinion informed by a different set of values.
Whatever those values might be - and it still after 4 years eludes me what they are -, they are wrong. This is a fundamental moral issue. That isn't changed by lots of people thinking them. It wouldn't even be changed if 90% of the population agreed with them.
As I've already said,
... getting lots of people to vote for you, doesn't somehow legitimate a sow's ear into a silk purse. .... Even if it's 'democratic', if he's [or it's] a sow's ear, he's [it's] still a sow's ear.
Comments
It seems you're right.
Because that 57% didn't vote as a block. It's patently obvious that a referendum with just 2 options is totally different to an election with goodness knows how many different options.
It seems to bong a bell somewhere...
Seems like Dyson are out of pocket on their ventilator efforts (and credit where it's due): While the MHRA is not thought to have rejected the CoVent, approval was expected to take some time
Because while our plucky British manufacturers can manufacture ventilators out of thin air and plucky Britishness in no time, you still have to check that those new designs are safe for patients.
Allegedly we don't need as many, but I should double-check my sources before I believe that.
Isn't DC the entire Cabinet as well as PM?
And he also now apparently is SAGE, so go figure.
The Tories, as I said earlier, have a large majority, so they can do what they like for the next five years. Well, four years seven months, now.
I *did* notice David Allen Green reacting to the Sunday Times article by saying there might be a basis for charges of misconduct in public office. He was convinced there was no way the Supreme Court would rule against the prorogation of Parliament, so that's the level of skepticism he has about legal solutions to political problems. For him to say something like that is significant.
Who would bring those charges, IDK.
I think he's essentially employed by the PM directly -- in the same way that a lot of MPs staff are.
D can also stand for 'Dictator'...
There are different rules for political advisers about neutrality, but misfeasance is about integrity, abuse of office, rather than political bias - otherwise all ministers would be permanently guilty..
He wrote:
"...some emerging news is, on face of it, in territory of misfeasance / misconduct in public office - which is both a criminal offence (ie, prosecutions) and a tort (getting sued)
"Would not put it any higher than that, but some serious stuff"
But we shall see, given that the 'Prime Minister' (Who he? Ed. )is apparently a spent force...
He really doesn’t - he is a humanities graduate with a STEM fetish who has extolled climate denialism.
The chances of him attending the meeting without waxing lyrical about his pet topics are fairly close to zero.
If he wasn't Johnson's advisor, he'd be that pub boor everyone would avoid.
Hail Cummings!
The head of Public Health England does not appear to be a member of SAGE. The three PHE members of SAGE are:
Sharon Peacock, a Professor of public health and microbiology
Maria Zambon, an experienced clinical virologist with a related PhD
Meera Chand, a consultant microbiologist
Cummings is like at least 1 in 10 dudes I worked with in the tech industry. This type genuinely believes that boasting is a better qualification than anything academia could offer them. A common example is a guy who drops out of a theoretical physics BSc to become a conspiracy theorist. It's unusual for this type to even have a first degree, as most of them haven't ever been through a critique and it shows.
I do not know any scientists who think highly of Cummings, or believe he understands science at all.
BoJo and his toadies can Do No Wrong, so who else is there, given the shambles we're in?
I don't know. I only ask because PHE has a CEO who has only ever worked in NHS admin since he was a teenager. However, he does have a track record for cock-ups such as this and his time at a mental health trust before that wasn't exactly a resounding success, leaving his successor to pick up the pieces.
Very accurate of Cummings, at least as far as it appears from this distance. Academia neither could or would offer him anything
Have you actually read those articles ?
I would certainly have expected the actual death toll to feature more heavily in headlines than it seems to.
“Sufficient” is not “vast”.
My objection is to your suggestion that the vast majority - virtually everyone in the country - would have rejected Brexit had they had a full awareness of exactly what would transpire afterwards. Because that’s demonstrably not the case.
Enough people may well have changed their minds to shift the referendum result, but that’s not the same thing at all.
You need to accept that about half of the country disagrees with you about this. Not because they’re stupid or uninformed, just because they have a different opinion informed by a different set of values.
"Different set of values" is the most casual way of saying "xenophobic selfish assholes" I've heard yet. Seems a bit misleading when coded that way, don't you think?
My "sufficient" comment was just related to the number of people who voted against this insanity the last time that was part of the choice put before the people. I do admit that the proportion of the electorate who voted for the Conservatives despite the total unsuitability of Johnson to lead a conga let alone a government does seriously erode my faith in the people of England to act sanely.
Well, if you don't mind I'm going to keep calling those who accept the values of racism, xenophobia, islamophobia stupid. If generous, uninformed. If anyone went into the voting booth and put their cross next to the Conservative candidate then either they didn't know what they were doing (uninformed) or agreed with policies such as the institutional murder of the poor, a "hostile environment" for anyone not deemed sufficiently English, creeping privatisation of the NHS, etc (all policies which can only be called stupid) ... and, of course, the no-deal clusterfuck of leaving the EU such that we wouldn't get medicines we need, wouldn't work with many of the best researchers in the world on solving the problems of our age, spend vastly more money on making up for the losses to our economy caused by the imposition of customs checks and the loss of free movement of labour, etc (which go so far beyond stupid it's difficult to find a word for it).
I don't think the FT estimate of 40 000 dead got much publicity. I suppose the push now for business is to lift the lockdown. Yesterday's figure of 800 dead would amount to 25 000 per month, and that leaves out care homes, where are we going?
Sure but even on the reduced estimates I'd have expected to see 10K and 20K deaths being headlined prominently in the press.
Plus you have disenfranchisement of voters, that the number of people actually voting is reducing over time, even considering that percentage is calculated using the number of votes cast against the number of people on the electoral register: 67.3% of those on the electoral roll cast a vote in the 2019 election.
However that electoral roll is inaccurate. According to the Electoral Reform Society press release from 27 September 2019 (link): That article continues to discuss those not included in the electoral register: unsurprisingly the young and BME are underrepresented and the white home-owning population are most likely to be included - another likely distortion of the voting pattern. Don't you remember the Labour push to change the election date to try and include student votes and the debates about that December election date trying to boost the Tory chances? And the issues raised about voter ID which will further disenfranchise voters?
Others are further disenfranchised by the first past the post electoral system because, for someone like me living in a safe Tory seat, my vote is worthless; whoever I vote for, it won't change anything. This isn't just me grumping, the Electoral Reform review of the 2019 election as reported in The Independent in March 2020 also comments on the phenomenon, (link),
How many voters in safe seats were part of the 32.3% on the electoral roll who didn't vote at all? Because there was no point?
This is a belated answer to @Marvin the Martian, belated because I needed to take the time to find the evidence to back up my response.
TL:DR There are queries around the assertions that any vote is as cut and defined as is being claimed.
Whatever those values might be - and it still after 4 years eludes me what they are -, they are wrong. This is a fundamental moral issue. That isn't changed by lots of people thinking them. It wouldn't even be changed if 90% of the population agreed with them.
As I've already said,