Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Sheilbh]

Totally separate but covid inquiry will be questioning witnesses until at least 2026. Not a huge surprise but...still very good, reliable work for some lawyers for the next couple of years 

Edit: Also - these are not scientists, but in evidence today. This is an email exchange between the then Cabinet Secretary (head of the civil seervice, key civil servant who works with the PM) and the Permanent Secretary of the Department for Health and Social Care (head civili servant in that department):


As I say this wasn't just or even primarily because of Johnson's instincts. If, at the end of the inquiry, we understand that Johnson was unfit to be PM and presided over a dumpster fire, but don't understand how faulty assumptions got baked into the scince and how officials got locked onto the wrong policy, then it won't have been worth it.

[Sheilbh]

Worth thinking there though was this anti-semitism actual deep set anti-semitism when analysed from a safe distance and not just idiots completely misplacing their thoughts about class, doing some rich = bad= Jews mental leaps.
The motive behind being anti-semitic doesn't matter in terms of the crime itself of course. If you attack Jewish people for being Jewish you're still an anti-semitic dick no matter whether it was because you think they control the global economy or are concerned for racial purity.
But in terms of how to tackle it I do think the source of the hate matters. I think there's a lot more hope for those who conflate Israel's worst and Jews as a whole than with die hard nazis who just hate Jews because...Jews.

Yeah I mean I think that's Engels', anti-semitism is the socialism of fools angle.

And the reality is I don't know how much we can disentangle different forms and sources as it were because I think, it's a form of bigotry with an incredibly long history in Europe. There palimpsest like layers in Europe which echo over the years. England is the origin of the blood libel - and Little St Hugh of Lincoln was 800 years ago. But there are echoes of that in modern anti-semitism - it's distorted and re-formulated. I think that means whatever the sources there are very deep wells that you're drawing from even if you don't know it.

I've seen lots of labelling of the Palestine marches as anti-semitic. Look at the crack downs abroad and talk of it here.
Sadiq Khan absolutely is being branded anti-semitic by minor tories and other nuts: but then he's a muslim so just existing gets him a lot of this shit.
I can't recall running into Burnham being outright called such but certainly a fair few comments within Labour circles blowing that way.

I've seen people labelling the chant and some of the actions on the march anti-semitic, but I think most acknowledge it's not what most attendees are intending when they go there - how it is experienced is another matter.

As I say I think there is a way to be a fully fledged anti-Zionist without being anti-semitic.

Besides the point but Simon Schama is not somebody whose view I would pay much heed to.

Why? Out of interest.

Absolutely true that Jews are feeling under threat today. Locally we've one of the biggest Haredi populations in Europe (irony) and you see a lot more of their security guys than usual, fewer of them to be seen in public parks (then again with the weather), etc....

It just sits very uneasy that this phrase which seems to have deep meaning in the calls for Palestinian statehood, is branded completely verboten because nutters have used it too. That even when you phrase it in such a way that clearly underlines Israelis and Palestinians should both be able to live happy free lives, its still bad.

I've seen takes from various groups both for and against it.
I can definitely see the argument that when things are on edge best steer clear of anything the slightest controversial when you're someone in the public eye. But when specifically phrased in a pro-peace for both groups way I can also see the purpose in using it targeted at those who lean more towards the Israel should not exist side of things to try and build bridges with them back towards moderation.

I agree. As I say it's not just that there are more of the Shomrim guys out, but there are - but Jewish schools were closed. Jews have been threatened on the streets - I think there's been a 14 fold increase in anti-semitic hate crime. I read of a Jewish wedding that was advised to get security for reception. That is, I think, unacceptable for any community in this country. So I think we need to listen to them and understand what they're saying and one thing is that, on a basic level that chant is interpreted by many as annihilationist.

So I don't think we can just leave it there - I get your point but I think we need to resolve it and my take is it is better to retire/stigmatise a chant than have it contribute to a scared community that needs security for the day to day life events (schools, worship, weddings etc).

Perhaps futile? But still. I can see the purpose of it. Like if you take the expression "Britain First", in the past used by a hate group and by terrorists (remember Jo Cox), but put it clearly in a context of meaning all British people and fuck racism and we do actually see the purpose in engaging with the world too....

Looping round and round inside my head here. Hopefully making a bit of sense.

Yeah I don't agree on that. I'm not sure Britain First can be rehabilitated or made moderate.

It's a bit like "all lives matter". You can see an argument where someone is saying it's basically them expressing their universal values and the worth of every life - and they may mean that. The context of it and how it is understood is that it was an alternative to and to diminish "black lives matter". I think people can be unaware of that context; and once they're aware they have a choice. I don't think there's a way, though, to use it that avoids the context and implication - even if that's what you mean. I think it's too clever by half.

Except the "You can't talk about immigration or you get called a racist" line is true to an extent with a certain kneejerk segment of the left.
The difference is whilst this group on the left is a bunch of fringe nutters, the "Criticise Israel and you're an anti-semite" folks have a much bigger voice and access to power.

I don't think it's true about either.

And I think on Israel we're not the US - it is absolutely possible to criticise Israel in the UK and very many people do (I think something has shifted in the US though). In much the same way as there were an awful lot of people in the UK talking about immigration when it was apparently not possible.

People may feel that view isn't reflected in the discourse of political leaders - although I'm not totally sure on that.

Sure, but then how do you have a protest for peace in Palestine that excludes the anti-semites?
The committed Israel must burn psychos will turn up to even the smallest of marches. They're super dedicated to this stuff. Much like how every march in the slightest bit left wing will attract the guy with a hammer and sickle flag with his picnic table to sell magazines, any mention of the words Israel or Palestine will summon the Jews=Israel=Bad brigade.

Yeah so this is the point Marie Le Conte made and I totally agree that I think the world is split between people who go to/have gone to rallies or demos who accept that there will be cranks; and people who don't who look at it and ask why you're marching with those cranks.

I've been on many protests where there's been the Class War lot who will always try to get their own chants going (at least until the march passes an estate agent which they will try to smash up, at which point they get kettled). Also I've been on demos where the SWP have a big presence and they're a loathsome organisation I want nothing to do with, so I won't take their signs or banners - but I know many don't know about the background with them so do.

In my view you don't have to join in - if a chant doesn't get a response then a new one will be started. Similarly you don't need to take an SWP sign - both depend on awareness, of course. For organisers they should invite speakers within the mainstream (and generally I think they do - except for an internal Labour fight - I've not seen any controversy over speakers). I think you do have those firewalls and it's nothing new, the left have been doing this for about 100 years because there's always been Trots and Stalinists and other bits of the anti-parliamentary/anti-democratic left who are trying strategies like front organisation (Stop the War, Stand Up To Racism etc) or entryism.

I think the left is better practiced at this and the right is more vulnerable because historically the left has always had to guard its left flank, while the far-right (at least in the UK) historically hasn't really been big on entryism.

[Sheilbh]

Separately on covid inquiry again one of the behavioural scientists. He was in the civil service so joined SAGE late but is part of the civil service behavioural science team.He had no idea where the "fatigue" point came from. Neither did the chair of the sub-committee of behavioural science experts. They were so concerned they shared a paper with others on the Spanish flu about how people tolerate lockdowns if they think they're justified.

He then adds that he went to a SAGE (so scientific advisors) meeting on 13 March. He says Stephen Powis and Patrick Vallance pushed the modellers on why they were so sure suppression as in China and South Korea wasn't viable. "The response from Graham Medley and John Edmonds was that suppression was not viable because as soon as a lockdown was lifted the virus would spike back up, implying there was no point. Graham Medley and John Edmonds, both stated that they were 100% sure about this. This gave me great concern as, in the world of probability, no one would ever say they were 100% sure. It indicated over-confidence in the model [...] Due to this, the confusion regarding the NHS capacity and other issues such as the very low level of testing capacity and ambition. I wrote in my notebook 'WE ARE NOT READY'. A No 10 colleague leaned over, cross out 'NOT READY', and wrote 'Fucked!'"

He adds that he sent an email on the 18 March to Sedwill and Cummings (copying two others) saying that SAGE models and assumptions were wrong and they hadn't considered lockdown. He informed others on SAGE who he thought might agree that he was going to push for discussion of total lockdown. Later that day he says other argued a lockdown could shut down the virus. Apparently Cummings also brought in two external data scientists to emphasise uncertainty in models. One of the modellers also had a paper saying that a series of lockdowns could work - "this was a change of tune". At that point he thought a lockdown might be on the cards.

Later that night the Permanent Secretary in the Health Department texted the Cabinet Secretary: "V worried about sage. It had no new data today that in had Monday yet changed its view. Plus no 10 spads should not be there. This has chillcott [the Iraq Inquiry] written all over it. Vallance has to act to restore confidence in it plus get it back to doing evidence not opinion." The then Cabinet Secretary replied "Agreed. It is nearly impossible to force evidence into the decision if the experts are fitting it to the policy. Anaconda!" They're discussing SAGE's turn that day to considering lockdown.

The lockdown was announced on 23 March.

Obviously everyone is putting their memory (with documentary evidence where available) so has to be handled with care - but it fits with other evidence from others. It's also worth noting that from his evidence there's not much interaction with Johnson but Hancock and Cummings were both very supportive as they were frustrated that SAGE wasn't considering lockdown as an option - so that text exchange between the two most senior civil servants in the Department for Health and No 10 don't seem to reflect the views of their political heads. It seems more like they weren't comfortable with a shift in advice from SAGE and were worried that lockdown reflected politicisation of the scientific advice.

[Tamas]

So are you saying if it was up for the Excel magicians we would had attempted a Sweden because their oldschool flu-based calculations told them it'd be fine?

[Sheilbh]

So are you saying if it was up for the Excel magicians we would had attempted a Sweden because their oldschool flu-based calculations told them it'd be fine?

From the evidence that's come out so far the modellers were very focused on the risk of fatigue/lockdown breaches plus a second wave so wanted Sweden - and Sweden had better results than the UK (although I think there's additional reasons for that). They didn't shift until 18 March and we went into lockdown five days later.

By the looks of it there was even stronger resistance among very senior civil servants. I'm struggling to work out why based on what's been released so far. There's probably a mix of things but onees that strike me is that they were maybe aware of how threadbare Britain's civil contingency plans were across departments so absolutely wanted to avoid that. Also possibly they were just invested on Plan A (Sweden) and didn't want to have to change. I think it also seems like they were concerned that the advice shifting to lockdown was the result of politicisation/people from No 10 attending SAGE.

A lot of the stuff on evidence is a little bit concerning. For example a few people have spoken about modelling the impact on the NHS, with a red line for when NHS capacity would be breached. It turned out different graphs had different measures of capacity - some were beds, some were ventilators. So were presenting different information and no-one realised initially. Not considered in capacity were the staff.

[Sheilbh]

Mentioned it in the Israel-Gaza thread but this is what I mean by the way sectarianism intersects - in Derry now:


Separately Sinn Fein (possibly going to form the next government and be sat with a veto on EU foreign policy) have said they consider it untenable for there to an Israeli Ambassador to Ireland in Ireland until a ceasefire is "imposed". Their statements on this are broadly in line with the pink tide countries in Latin America like Colombia or Chile. In part I think this reflects, as I say, that Sinn Fein and the IRA in their modern form were formed in the North and in the 60s. They obviously have a strong tradition of Irish Republicanism, but also in a third worldist context that ties black civil rights in America with Palestinian liberation, with the end of apartheid, with physical force in Northern Ireland.

[Savonarola]

Mentioned it in the Israel-Gaza thread but this is what I mean by the way sectarianism intersects - in Derry now:


Separately Sinn Fein (possibly going to form the next government and be sat with a veto on EU foreign policy) have said they consider it untenable for there to an Israeli Ambassador to Ireland in Ireland until a ceasefire is "imposed". Their statements on this are broadly in line with the pink tide countries in Latin America like Colombia or Chile. In part I think this reflects, as I say, that Sinn Fein and the IRA in their modern form were formed in the North and in the 60s. They obviously have a strong tradition of Irish Republicanism, but also in a third worldist context that ties black civil rights in America with Palestinian liberation, with the end of apartheid, with physical force in Northern Ireland.

I saw in Al Jazeera that the fans of the Glasgow Celtics soccer club are demonstrating their solidarity with Palestine.  The picture they have of a match:



for an American is very strange.

[Sheilbh]

Yeah the club explicitly asked no flags. I think they've now suspended one of the fan groups that organises tifos for handing out Palestinian flags ahead of the game.

It's arguably area in the country where opinions on Israel-Palestine are strongest because they're really just an expression of sectarian identity. Both Northern Ireland and also Scottish football which stil  has a lot of sectarianism. So at the other end of town you'll have, say, this flying at the war memorial:


Edit: And in Glasgow, Celtic are the Catholic, Irish club while Rangers are the Protestant, British club. I wouldn't be surprised to see the odd Israeli flag in Rangers games (though possibly not as organised as that).

[Admiral Yi]

Dude needs to get a longer leash or normal sized arms.

[HVC]

When Josq visits London

https://www.instagram.com/reel/CzD3uyZMLMA/?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==

[The Brain]

So are you saying if it was up for the Excel magicians we would had attempted a Sweden because their oldschool flu-based calculations told them it'd be fine?

From the evidence that's come out so far the modellers were very focused on the risk of fatigue/lockdown breaches plus a second wave so wanted Sweden - and Sweden had better results than the UK (although I think there's additional reasons for that). They didn't shift until 18 March and we went into lockdown five days later.

By the looks of it there was even stronger resistance among very senior civil servants. I'm struggling to work out why based on what's been released so far. There's probably a mix of things but onees that strike me is that they were maybe aware of how threadbare Britain's civil contingency plans were across departments so absolutely wanted to avoid that. Also possibly they were just invested on Plan A (Sweden) and didn't want to have to change. I think it also seems like they were concerned that the advice shifting to lockdown was the result of politicisation/people from No 10 attending SAGE.

A lot of the stuff on evidence is a little bit concerning. For example a few people have spoken about modelling the impact on the NHS, with a red line for when NHS capacity would be breached. It turned out different graphs had different measures of capacity - some were beds, some were ventilators. So were presenting different information and no-one realised initially. Not considered in capacity were the staff.

In a recent interview with Anders Tegnell, who was Swedish chief epidemiologist during the pandemic, he said that when  talking to his counterparts in other countries they often intended to do about the same things as Sweden did until politicians took over and all the panicky be-seen-to-DO-SOMEFINK measures got implemented.

[Josquius]

When Josq visits London

https://www.instagram.com/reel/CzD3uyZMLMA/?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==

First attempt to watch - Something went wrong?
Harsh.
But true.

Tried again - angry Irish guy I presume is shouting Irish nationalist stuff? Sound quality poor so can't make it out.
The problem here is he is clearly confidently driving through central London.

[Admiral Yi]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvvtZIwh4Bs

Here you go Squeeze.

[HVC]

In addition to the Irish nationalists stuff he's  calling Londoner's cunts. That the part that reminded me of you

[crazy canuck]

I think anti-semitism is special among racist/xenophobic views. Not because the target people are special in any way, but because how a widespread and natural part of European culture and discourse it was until very very recently.

I know from discussions with people around Europe that I was certainly not the only one whose grandparents' (and even parents') generation could be ridiculously anti-semitic as par for the course, often without any particular malice or hate - it was just one of those established facts that Jews control many areas of life like culture or banking, that sort of stuff. We accept the existence of unconscious bias in racism, how could it not be present against Jews when it was so ingrained in our culture for so very long?

So when the only vicious third world ethnic conflict that manages to ignite strong views and demonstrations in Europeans (and by quite a far margin) happens to involve Jews on one of the sides, I am struggling to attribute that to mere coincidence.

Not just in Europe.

As one example, when I was growing up in a small town outside of Vancouver in the 70s, it was common to hear people referring to the fact that they had made a good deal as having "Jewed" the other side down.

But I am not sure there is a connection you are now drawing.  Rather I think it is more likely that people are genuinely concerned about what has been happening to Palestinian civilians and particularly now.