What Do You Think Today?

[peter]

Much is being made by the government (via it's mouthpiece the BBC) of the signing of a trade deal with Australia and today's Daily Express hails it as the first sign of global Britain forging ahead in the wake of leaving the EU.

Would that it were so - we need as a country, all the breaks we can get at present, and it would be lovely to see something happening that was actually good for the country in amongst the 'dark forrest' of the current time. But alas all that glisters is not gold and to try to use the Australian deal as a pointer that all is well, all will be well and all manner of things will be well is simply bullshit.

You can see why the Government would do this; it is composed of the very individuals who have led us into this wilderness and they must be desperate to have something to show to the people as a pointer that they have not been completely adrift in their thinking - but this is alas most definitely not the commet in the sky that augurs the arrival of the good times to come. In interview with James O'Brien yesterday an economic adviser on trade deals said that while the deal represented a very minor improvement of our ability to trade with Australia, it had been bought at very considerable cost. The deal was, he said, being sold highly in Australia - and so it would be, they had won the right to import with zero taxes and tariffs into the UK......deals don't get any better than that - and that surely must mean that if Australia had done so well, then the UK must have been the looser. Anyone could do a deal, the man said, if they just kept lowering the price, lowering the price, until it became too good to refuse. To deal in this way, as the UK has done, is a measure of the desperation of the UK Government to do deals and exactly mirrors what was said by the critics of brexit, that we would be forced into acceptance of substandard deals by virtue of our need to try to repair the damage done by leaving the EU.

And this deal could not in any way, shape or form be compared to the loss we have incurred in leaving the EU; it was he said, like comparing a sticking plaster to the work needed to repair the damage done by having your arm torn off. That the Government is trying (albeit without actually coming out and saying it) to do this is but another example of the mendacity they exhibit in their dealings with the public. They clearly think that the public are stupid enough to buy this kind of slip-and-slide...... and they are probably right.

But there will be a cost to the ease with which we have concluded this deal, for every country with whom we talk terms from now on will see this and will say, "This is what they can do, what they will do," and on this basis will not be happy to accept less. Zero taxes and tariffs on imports into the UK will be the common standard expected by every country with whom we treat. And it isn't as if we have actually gained very much in the deal anyway. Australia was not a country with whom there was very much trouble in importing goods into anyway; cars faced minimal import duties as do biscuits and whiskey (another two of the areas mentioned by Johnson in his talking up the deal yesterday). As for ceramics - the commentator yesterday could not see that there was a huge unmet demand in Australia for UK ceramics, but time would tell.

So alas, the truth is that this deal simply confirms the worst fears of the anti-brexit lobby and demonstrates, contrary to what the Government would have us believe, that we have transformed ourselves in one stroke from an equal partner in a trading union of almost unrivaled economic might into a third rate player who must accept whatever scrappy terms her opposition chooses to give.

[Avatar]

Yeah, thought you were trading just fine with Aus before, commonwealth and all that.

Also see that they have indeed put the brakes on opening up a bit, even as we add another hour to our own curfew and drop gatherings by another 50 people, with daily reported cases showing the greatest increase in 6 months yesterday, and our 3rd wave being officially on.

I note however that I was 2 months out in my prediction of when it would strike.

--A

[peter]

Yes; the deal is all about the presentation, nothing about the content Av.

[peter]

Very annoying to read that the Government is considering whether to lift the quarantine restrictions in respect of people coming into the country from countries other than 'green-zone' ones, for the 2,500 officials and 'VIP's' (ie celebrities) booked to attend the final of the European Championship matches at Wembley. Football governing body Euefa have threatened to move the finals to Budapest if the regulations are not waived, and the Government it is reported, is considering the option of doing so.

Given that there are millions of us who are being recommend not to travel and are abiding by this, millions who cannot travel because they cannot begin to satisfy the quarantine requirements that are currently in play, it would be insulting in the extreme to see the Government capitulate to this attempt to exert pressure upon it. If they do so, then we will know as a matter of absolute certainty that this is a pandemic for the masses, and not one that is supposed to impact upon the lives of the so called elites of our societies. We have already seen this to a degree with the diplomatic immunity granted to those who attended the G7 Summit in Cornwall - will we now see it extended for more frivelous reasons. This will not be acceptable in any way shape or form.

[Avatar]

As Terry Pratchett said, if you do it once for a good reason, soon enough you will be doing it for bad reasons as well...

--A

[Skyweir]

Yeah agreed it’s a bit of a stretch to assign one trade deal with Australia as … any sort of salve to Brexit lol or that things a going swimmingly now

I thought we are at the tail end of this VOVID business but not likely I’m afraid.

Even though it’s been a relatively minimal crisis here - the impact of mitigation’s have been significant.

And now that many states have relaxed mitigation’s - COVID is on the comeback in Melbourne & Sydney.

Sure small beer compared to India or the US or the UK .. but a few cases in Sydney the other day shows transmission was likely facilitated by the omission of mask wearing.

Kinda scary stuff nevertheless- as few people are carrying masks these days as weve all become pretty chill, too chill it seems.

[peter]

As Terry Pratchett said, if you do it once for a good reason, soon enough you will be doing it for bad reasons as well...

--A

Could apply to lockdowns per se just as much as to inappropriate waiving of restrictions in the case of 'VIP's'.

[Avatar]

Well, looking rough here at the moment, current wave is already exceeding the last one, and at our current rate of vaccination, it will take 10 years to vaccinate everybody.

--A

[peter]

Not if Boris Johnson and the G7 lot have anything to do with it Av! They reckon on vaccinating the whole world by the end of next year. Yeah right - good luck with that!



(In the meantime our lot at home are talking about starting the process of giving a booster dose in the autumn of this year. Jesus - the first two left me feeling like shit......is this thing never going to end.I'd sooner take my chances with the bug!)

[Avatar]

Dunno if it will ever end. The real worry now is "escape" variants which manage to mutate to an extent where the vaccine-generated antibodies do not recognise them. The longer it takes to vaccinate people, the more likely that "updated" booster shots will be required as new variants emerge.

--A

[peter]

Quick update on the situation in respect of the UEFA finals and semi-finals, it has been confirmed that the quarantine requirements will be waived for upwards of 3000 officials, sponsors and other assorted VIPs while the rest of us labour under the restrictions that make travel for the bulk of us, impossible.

Thank you to Andrew Neil for pointing out that he wonders if today's media focus on the PM's comments that they are looking at whether quarantine requirements might be soon lifted for people who are double vaccinated is a coincidence. Perhaps, he said, the hypocrisy of the decision in relation to the lifting of restrictions for the football attendees might not look so egregiously bad if it appears that the restrictions might be lifted for the rest of us shortly as well. Watch he said, very carefully, what is said and done in this respect after the offending games have taken place.

[peter]

Don't imagine that the atmosphere around Matt Hancock's dinner table is going to be too relaxed this evening following today's front page picture in The Sun, which features the Health Secretary in a seriously close clinch with one of his special assistants who he later appointed to a nice little executive seat on some board or another paying fifteen grand for three days work a year or something.

Hancock has apologised for breaking the Covid rules - a misdemeanor for which he was adamant that Professor Pants down (Ferguson or some such) should resign for when the bonking boffin was caught at it earlier - and predictably Boris Johnson has accepted this and says the matter is closed (he would wouldn't he, people in glass houses style of thing).
A Government source also pointed out that technically no rules had been broken because Hancock and the aid were in a "working situation", and not therefore bound by social distancing rules. Somehow I don't think that this is going to cut much ice with most people, who, like me, will wonder which part of his job he was perusing with his hand on this woman's arse and his tongue halfway down her trachea.

It's a fairly typical case of the little head ruling the big head, and frankly (as Dr Johnson said of a woman's preaching, it isn't done well, but) one was surprised to see it done at all. But what interests me is not that he broke the rules (hell - everyone was doing it) or indeed that he found himself a squeeze on the side (ditto the above in respect of most Tory Ministers it seems), but why, when the picture was taken in May, has it taken until now to surface. Could it be that Hancock has, following his constant appearance in the Cummings revelations (and the PM's apparent opinion that he is a fucking tit or something) has simply become an embarrassment to the Government and it's a case of "That man - he simply got to go!" A quick phone call to Rupert and hey-ho, job's a good 'un!




--------------------------------------0-----------------------------------


Oh, and for anyone who is insouciant about the Government's decision to allow upwards of three thousand VIPs into the country for the forthcoming UEFA finals at Wembley without the usual Covid quarantine restrictions being applied, I would point out the following. In my area, where the same lifting of restrictions was made in respect of the G7 Summit attendees, the Covid infection rate subsequent to the event jumped from being virtually non-existant to the highest in the country.

[peter]

Tonight the inevitable has happened and Health Secretary Matt Hancock has fallen on his (pork) sword, following the revealing photos of him engaged in a clinch with his parliamentary aide in the Palace of Westminster.

Hancock had suffered a gruesome 24 hours since the pictures first appeared in yesterday's Sun newspaper, but despite the PM's apparent support, following a further picture in today's Sun and repeats of yesterday's on every other front page, he clearly felt enough was enough. His letter to the PM was typical of the type - don't want to distract blah, blah, time with my family blah, blah, proud to have served etc - and the PM's reply more of the same (thanks, proud, future service and the like). But........ behind closed doors I'm betting that Johnson is pleased to see the back of him. He was featuring to often in the revelations of Dominic Cummings and was casting a cloud over the PM's judgement in so doing. Johnson had already been exposed as thinking he was "fucking hopeless", and yet for all this the blighter seemed determined to stick in situ come hell or high water. That's why I can't help wondering why all this has come out now, months after the event as it were. The photos were taken in May and yet only now does the Murdoch owned paper choose to print them. Why is this I wonder? They would have been dynamite at the time, but they were held on to until now. I smell something fishy here and cannot but wonder if the PM hasn't been engaging in a spot of 'dark arts' wielding for himself. With Boris Johnson nothing would suprise me and I am intrigued that none of the media coverage I have seen has questioned this delay on the Sun's part in publishing. I suspect we will never know the full story of what has transpired here, but that it runs much deeper than we are seeing on the surface.

[peter]

The Hancock affair is in many ways a troubling one. This morning, following the now ex Minister's departure from office, the Sun newspaper is crowing it's success in exposing his hypocrisy and bringing him down. Yet it is hard to maintain this sense of glee at the possibly justified falling of this man when you read of his having woken his children, the youngest of which was eight, late on Thursday evening, to inform them out of the blue that he was leaving them and their mother, who apparently had no knowledge of his affair and considered their marriage happy and stable. Aware that the scandal was about to break, and having been informed that his resignation was the only way that he might salvage his political career, he apparently went to his family and delivered the stunning blow that would destroy all of their happiness for many moons to come.

Across town, the same story was being repeated by his 'partner in crime', who also had a husband and three children of her own. That's a lot of lives devastated on the back of an infringement of social distancing which, frankly, how many of us have not been guilty of, if not perhaps in such a troubling manner.

Hancock's decision to leave his wife and children and take up with the woman he has been exposed as having an affair with has a foreshadowing in the actions of Boris Johnson when the PM's affair with Carrie Symonds was exposed. Johnson was able to salvage his political career by abandoning his long suffering wife and hiding under the protective shield of 'true love'. Today, Hancock is doing the same. The papers say that the couple are 'in love' and describe the relationship as "serious". This is about the only thing that the public might accept as a mitigation of his deplorable crime against his wife and family, such is our stomach curdling sentimentality when it comes to 'true love'. This is quite possibly what Hancock is banking on; that when he has to go back and report to his constituency mandarins on his behaviour, that having left his wife to start a new home in the arms of the woman with whom (try as he might to fight against the force of the wiles of the Goddess of Love) he was destined to be with, they will have sympathy and not deselect him. Also he (possibly) hopes that the public will see him less as a simple cheating love-rat and more as a star-crossed lover.

One serious hopes that the mans thinking is not so cold - that he would sacrifice his family for the sake of political expediency - but the suspicion must remain. There is much truth in the old adage 'all's fair in love and war', but only if it is genuine love; if Hancock is simply aiming to salvage his own political career at the expense of his own family, then he is despicable beyond repair and his wife and children are best rid of him. If on the other hand, he has genuinely fallen for another person who he must sacrifice all to be with - then you have to allow him the right to pursue his happiness while lamenting the cost that others will have to bear as the price of his so doing.

But as for the Sun, I wonder if those behind the expose are waking up this morning proud of what they have done. And if (as I speculate above) there have been forces behind the scenes at work here in bringing the former Health Secretary down, then shame on them. Their guilt runs further than Hancock's could ever dream of aspiring to.

[peter]

Gradually, it seems, a story is beginning to surface about how these revelations about Matt Hancock appeared in the Sun - or at least speculation as to how it might have happened and why it took a month or more to be published. It was known that the images that first appeared on Friday were taken from CCTV footage from cameras installed in the then Health Secretary's offices, and in today's Sunday Mail they speculate that the images were taken (ie downloaded) by an anti-lockdown 'fifth-columnist' within the Department of Health itself. The Sun has yet to reveal how it obtained the video, but Mail speculates that this disgruntled employee held on to the footage for a month or so before, in frustration at the Health Secretary's hypocrisy, releasing them to the paper who broke the story.

This is all good as far as it goes - it explains how the (what should have been secure) footage got to the Sun in the first place and why it has taken so long to emerge, but when you consider the background from whence all of this comes about a slightly more disturbing picture can be conjectured. The initial story of Hancock's misdemeanor comes from the Murdoch owned Sun - and Murdoch is of course known to be thick as thieves with the PM and his entourage. When the inevitable questions begin to be asked as to how what should have been totally protected images from inside the heart of Government find their way into the public arena it is the Barklay Brothers owned Sunday Mail (also vociferous supporters of the Johnson regime) that provides a putative explanation from which the PM can be exonerated from any involvement if it were true. Is this all a bit too convenient - I don't know - but if the PM was in any way involved it would be a stain indeed on his character, a depth to which even he with his chequered history had yet to descend to.

But before we start feeling too sorry for Hancock we should at least consider what the man has done. His desertion of his obligations of faithfulness to his wife and children notwithstanding, his list of alleged misdemeanours is significant. To date he has used his office to bestow PPE contracts worth millions upon his friends, awarded a company owned by his sister (and of which he is a director) similar contracts, putatively lied to the PM and cabinet about what was occurring in respect of care homes and testing, withheld information that could have altered the PM's decision about lifting lockdown restrictions, raised the personal assistant with whom he was engaged in an affair to a lucrative role in the NHS directorship. Now today in the broad sheets we learn that he putatively used his own personal email accounts to discuss the awarding of contracts and other business, such that what arrangements were being made were beyond the scrutiny of people within his own department and the rest of Government - a practice that cannot but raise suspicion that what was being negotiated might not have been above board in the way that we might expect such business to be conducted. No - there are questions hanging over Hancock that cannot but have been a serious source of concern to Johnson and my bet is that whatever his involvement (Johnson's that is) in what has happened, he'll be pleased to have put some distance between them.

[I'm Murrin]

Saw an interesting point made on Twitter that the Sun (a Rupert Murdoch-owned paper) just happens to have taken down a Cabinet minister the week before another Cabinet minister was due to make a major decision on Murdoch's ability to influence editorial decisions at two of his other papers. Implication being that the timing of the Matt Hancock reveal could be read as a warning to Oliver Dowden.

[peter]

Good spot Murrin! Seems that these days we have very much to be in the business of joining the dots for ourselves, and that is a very pertinent observation.

[peter]

We appear now to have a Health Secretary in the Government who takes a more nuanced view of what we have done in our attempts to combat the Covid-19 pandemic. Sajid Javid was reported yesterday in the Telegraph as having long been more sceptical about the wisdom of the lockdown policy and as having said that in years to come he believes we will look back and say "why did we do that?" His concern is far more in terms of the long term collateral damage than his predecessor, who now it seems, is being presented as the driving force behind the policy and its swingeing application.

Whatever the case for or against, on the grounds of both protecting our lives and our society/economy our Government must be deemed to have failed. They have overseen one of the worst (if not the actual worst) death rates in the world and our economy is reported as being harder hit than any other in Europe if not the world. The Government, whose precise job it was to protect us from such eventualities, has overseen the wreckage of people's lives, businesses and in most likelihood the life-chances of our younger generation for decades to come. Their single success has been in promoting the development and sourcing of vaccine, which an innervated NHS was able to roll out into a mass vaccination program that has saved an estimated 27,000 lives. This success in obtaining the vaccine must be recognised, as must their dismal performance in all other areas.

As things (hopefully) return to normal, there will be serious attempts on the part of the Johnson administration to rewrite history in respect of this failure (see Johnson's attempts to suggest that he sacked Hancock as a small prelude of this) and where they cannot do so, the emphasis will be on shifting the blame - and blame there is - onto the now departed Hancock (and the scientific advisors he relied upon). As the true cost of this pandemic manifests in the months and years ahead, Johnson, like Blair before him, will shift and side-step, slip and slide in his attempts to avoid any blame, but never let it be forgotten that this Government, rather than aid us through this crisis by careful and measured action applied in timely manner, have by their mismanagement and self-serving activities, actively made it worse.

[peter]

Prince Harry seems to have popped up again in the UK, present it seems for the unveiling of a statue of his mother (though why we would need such a thing defeats me). Significantly though, he appears in this morning's press, pictured travelling about in a car and will later today attend the unveiling ceremony. There has been no question raised about his having quarantined or not, and I wonder if he has followed the rules under which the rest of us labour, or if his visit is another one of those 'special cases' that seem to so conveniently be found for individuals above a certain threshold value on our social hierarchy scale?

This will no doubt become the order of the day more and more as time passes. The media will not ask the difficult questions about the application of rules (or otherwise) to the group deemed to be above such trifles as long as they themselves are included in the group. The questions will simply be ignored as if they don't exist when it suits the movers and shakers. This was of course how things ran in the old Soviet Union, where the luxuries of rich living enjoyed by the top dogs were simply not spoken off (unless you wanted to finish up in the gulag in Siberia), and we in the West had plenty to say about the process when it was occurring there.

Similarly, we can equate the reportage of last weekend's anti-lockdown protests in London in the state media outlet to that of Pravda in years gone by. Our state service, the BBC now reports only the official Government line, ignoring or blurring the truth on any difficult subject where it is forced to make comment. Taking the case raised above, last weekend upwards of a hundred thousand people turned out onto the streets - some report the figures as being even higher - to protest against the continuance of lockdown policy in the UK. When it came to reporting this groundswell of opinion and action, it was either wholly ignored, or reported as being basically a 'protest for the sake of protest' type of event, in which disparate groups of protesters, everything from 'save the whale' to 'ban the bomb' , was present and given equal weighting. This is in complete contradiction to a number of eyewitness accounts, who said that while some fringe groups were indeed to be found on the edges of the protest (as is often the case at such gatherings) the huge majority, in excess of ninety percent, were there to protest against the loss of liberty imposed upon the British public by lockdown.

These are signs that do not bode well for the future of democracy in this country where alone in Europe (well - with the exception of Victor Orban's Hungary) we seem to be bent on pursuing the nationalist/populist agenda so loved by repressive regimes the world over, past and present.

[I'm Murrin]

The BBC says Harry arrived in the UK a week ago in order to complete quarantine for the event.