forkboy84 posted:

I can't help but worry we are all so loving desperate to get out of lockdown that we're rushing into it far too early. The government already proved they care more about businesses and their bottom line than about people dying so their analysis is suspect, and the opposition don't know the meaning of the word oppose as apparently that doesn't come under forensic analysis.

I'm a pessimist by nature but the odds that we're not going to gently caress this all up seem slim considering it's Great Britain, the stupidest loving country in all the land. Of course we'll gently caress it up so Tim Wetherspoons can open up his pubs at 25% capacity for a couple months before we lockdown again.

At some point before too long we will just stop locking down and accept thousands of deaths a year as the cost of capitalism, and we'll all just go along with it because we're a nation of shopkeepers.

Of course I could being slightly melodramatic, that is the worst case scenario (well, aside from a viral mutation that is immune to all existing vaccines and also much more lethal, I guess that's the actual worst case, but the point is I'm being a bit of a catastrophist)

feedmegin posted:

Ah, a sort of nationalist socialism.

Not even joking, socialism-bur-only-for-Aryans was part of the Nazi platform, KdF, Volkswagen etc. Its what made them different from regular old Conservatives.

Darth Walrus posted:

Hitler's main sales pitch to businesses after becoming chancellor was that democracy was incompatible with capitalism

Darth Walrus posted:

It genuinely wasn't. The Nazis were openly and explicitly pro-capitalist from day one, and the Strasserites (who honestly weren't that socialist either) were always on the fringe. Mass privatisation, persecution of trade unions, and cuts to welfare were always the order of the day. Hitler's main sales pitch to businesses after becoming chancellor was that democracy was incompatible with capitalism, and therefore should be done away with.

ThomasPaine posted:

The govt is absolute poo poo as always but I do think we can be overly pessimistic here. The vaccination programme is actually being delivered quite efficiently and there's no reason to believe that once we hit a certain percentage of the population that'll won't be enough to keep infection rates under control. You don't need 100% vaccination to effectively achieve that.

Bobby Deluxe posted:

You have a good point in that the actions of Israel are really no more problematic than some other countries if you dig down deep enough into their foreign policy. What they're doing to the Palestinians is probably not as bad as what the Chinese authorities are doing to the Uighur people or have been doing for years in Tibet.

But you almost hit the nail on the head before with Saudi Arabia, saying that you criticise say the actions of their military in Yemen for example, and everyone goes "Yeah, Saudis bad."

The difference there is that there isn't a huge, weird countermovement that instantly interprets your criticism as really supporting a movement that wants all Saudis wiped off the face of the planet. You can criticise the actions of the Saudis without being accused of Islamaphobia, for example. You can criticise China in the same way, or Russia without getting the same kind of backlash from the Israel Defender logging on.

And even in that explaination I have to be careful to clarify that I mean Journos and weird twitter personalities, otherwise I'll be accused of implying that there's a secret plot to control the media and stifle criticism of Israel. Even though all governments involve themselves in nationalist messaging and have counterculture intelligence, if you even imply that Israel might be doing it, you fall foul of antisemitic tropes.

Now there is a unique historical context with Israel in terms of there being a valid reason to worry about people saying Jewish people have any kind of secret plots going on. But it also means that criticising Israel in particular becomes more difficult than criticism of other countries, which I think is why some people make such a huge case of protesting about it - they are more vocal and more passionate because they have to work so much harder to break through with that particular cause.

I think possibly the reason people on the left react so badly to the antisemitism stuff is precisely because centrists who only understand surface politics have created a situation where any criticism of Israel is taken as a criticism of Judaism, to the point that even left left-wing jews who say "no it loving isn't" instantly have their jewishness questioned.

It's harder and more complicated to criticise Israel, even when their current actions in the west bank have been criticised by the UN as illegal occupation because then you have David Bladdibub on twitter suggesting that what you really mean is [smug screeching noise].

ThomasPaine posted:

This would be ideal, honestly.


Nations always do shady poo poo and state formation is an inherently violent act wherever you go. I think it was Zizek who talks about Israel doing the same poo poo every state has ever done as it creates and defines itself, only for most countries in the twenty-first century that violent origin is obfuscated by romanticism and time and myth. Israel hasn't yet achieved that distance and legitimacy because its violent creation is ongoing and its character is very difficult to deny.

On the other hand, I personally find Israel particularly distasteful because it is pretty much the only extant nation that is explicitly an ethnostate. There are lots of racist states out there (all of Europe) and lots of them are ethnically homogenous, and places like the USA + other settler colonial places are similarly white supremacist but at least leave that as subtext and try to pretend they're not. I can't think of another country that just openly says 'we are the country for x ethnicity' like Israel does, and that makes me super uncomfortable, even moreso because so many people seem to see it as a good thing.

feedmegin posted:

That reminds me. Therattle, aren't you South African originally? What was it like growing up under Apartheid anyway? Genuinely curious.

ThomasPaine posted:

The govt is absolute poo poo as always but I do think we can be overly pessimistic here. The vaccination programme is actually being delivered quite efficiently and there's no reason to believe that once we hit a certain percentage of the population that'll won't be enough to keep infection rates under control. You don't need 100% vaccination to effectively achieve that.

therattle posted:

As a Jew knowing that there is a place for Jews where we will always be welcome (the ultimate Plan B) is comforting,

namesake posted:

Yeah that's all true but the percent you need to hit is at least double where we are today nevermind the time lag from getting first jabbed to getting the individual immunity levels needed. Meanwhile all schools are back in two weeks. This is at best a 'running hot' strategy where the hospitals are going to be kept rammed but potentially not collapsing for the next few months.

Without there being an obvious 'all clear' moment (or one that is at best at the end of this year) everyone is still going to be extremely nervous about doing anything in large groups which means 'normal' is still far away and the government has decided to up the death toll in the interim to avoid covering the costs of doing otherwise.

CancerCakes posted:

Has this ever been tested in recent history? Like a mass exodus caused by societal upheaval? Considering how a right wing government normally reacts to a massive influx of immigrants there is no reason to believe that shared cultural heritage will ensure good treatment.

ThomasPaine posted:

I saw a take on Twitter that seemed quite convincing, that the strategy seems to be 'vaccinate the old and people with underlying health conditions then reopen and go back to de facto herd immunity plan amongst the healthy <50s'. That way excess deaths drop off because the vulnerable aren't being infected, and you can open everything back up on the back of that while declaring everything 'back to normal' while ignoring that your whole working age population is getting sick and potentially developing long-covid symptoms as a result until you muddle through finally getting everyone else jabbed.

It's easy to spin because deaths are down, business loves it, old tory voters aren't in any danger because they've been vaccinated, it costs far less than doing things properly. Just don't think of the long-term public health consequences. I'm sure the person was just speculating but it would be very on brand.

ThomasPaine posted:

I saw a take on Twitter that seemed quite convincing, that the strategy seems to be 'vaccinate the old and people with underlying health conditions then reopen and go back to de facto herd immunity plan amongst the healthy <50s'. That way excess deaths drop off because the vulnerable aren't being infected, and you can open everything back up on the back of that while declaring everything 'back to normal' while ignoring that your whole working age population is getting sick and potentially developing long-covid symptoms as a result until you muddle through finally getting everyone else jabbed.

It's easy to spin because deaths are down, business loves it, old tory voters aren't in any danger because they've been vaccinated, it costs far less than doing things properly. Just don't think of the long-term public health consequences. I'm sure the person was just speculating but it would be very on brand.

Answers Me posted:

https://twitter.com/jasebyjason/status/1363908521742499845?s=21

It absolutely is, isn’t it. Everything’s going to be hosed for ever. Feels like people are just going to gladly accept the inevitable ‘we must pay back the cost of dealing with the pandemic’ turbo austerity that is inevitably going to follow after a brief period of extra spending

therattle posted:

It is also a very macho culture. It felt like there were only two ways to be a man in South Africa (only one of which was acceptable), and neither of them were me. I was uncomfortable in my masculinity there (and for many years alter as a result). I didn't think I was gay but I wasn't a "real man" either, and those were really the only two options.

Of course, growing up it all felt pretty normal...

The Times posted:

What is the point of Sir Keir Starmer?

What’s the point of an opposition that doesn’t want to bring down the government? This is not a rhetorical question, although it might be a tricky one to answer. I ask it because of Sir Keir Starmer and his thunderous support for Matt Hancock. Which is, of course, not quite how he’d put it. Or, if they were being fair, how anyone would.

To recap, the High Court found last week that Hancock’s department had failed to publish details of last year’s contracts for PPE in a timely manner. Contracts also went to ministers’ aquaintances and party donors, and often with no record kept of why one company was prioritised over another. Perhaps they went through proper channels; perhaps they just knew the right minister’s dogwalker. Perhaps we shall never know.

So, does this mean Hancock should go? “I don’t want to call for him to resign,” said Starmer on Sunday. “I do think he’s wrong about the contracts ... but ...” The rest is just noise. A Labour leader thinks a Tory health secretary should stay in post. Cue a chorus of leftish Labour talking heads who feel that calling for Tory scalps is the bare minimum they expect from their leader. Oh God, they shriek. You can’t even do that? What are you even for? What is the point?

The thing is, there’s a very good reason for Starmer to resist demanding Hancock’s resignation. Which is that as demands go, it’s ridiculous. Hancock goes, and the situation is improved ... how, exactly? Do we all breathe more easily under the stewardship of health secretaries Williamson or Raab? Starmer doesn’t want that. Even the shrieking heads don’t want that. Nobody does.

The public, I expect, doesn’t really want anything. The Tory defence for cronyism over PPE is roughly, “you bet we broke the rules because things were screwed.” My hunch is that it goes down pretty well, on the basis that when nurses are reduced to wearing binbags, time is of the essence. Which means that Hancock’s resignation over this would be both a bad idea and probably not even a popular one. Yet despite all that we still expect the leader of the opposition to call for it anyway. Because otherwise what’s even the point of having one?

This is not a crisis unique to Keir Starmer. Journalism is about criticising, too, and for the past year that has sometimes made it a bit hard to navigate. Think of it as if you were on an aeroplane (remember those?) crossing the Atlantic, and you hit a godawful storm, and the door to the cabin swung open, and you saw that the pilot was actually, no kidding, Mr Bean.

Terrifying, right? Worse. A near-criminal failure of both the people who put Bean in the job (the electorate, but let’s not get bogged down with that) and bloody Bean himself, for taking it. Somewhere down the line, this whole “who in holy hell gave Mr Bean a pilot’s licence?” scenario will definitely have to be addressed. Only, there and then, as the masks drop from the ceiling, what do you actually do? Do you get right up in Bean’s face and scream, “AAAAAGH, YOU’RE RUBBISH, BEAN! YOU’RE NOT THE PILOT WE WANT!” while he’s literally wrestling with the steering yoke to prevent you from plunging into the ocean? Because personally (and really, this has been my defining professional angst of the crisis) I’m not sure that helps.

For journalism, there is at least a justifying shibboleth here, in the idea that scrutiny and criticism of government makes for better government. The leader of the opposition, though, is not expected to help the government perform better. By all the logic of our political system, he should seize upon mistakes and magnify them, so as to make the government tumble and, ultimately, be replaced by him. Tradition dictates this should be done when it is reasonable, but also when it is not. This is just the gig.

Starmer, though, is cripplingly poor at being unreasonable. When his tilt at leadership began, at the end of 2019, this was the whole point. Enough of the lunging irresponsibility of Boris Johnson, or the firebrand petulance of that guy with the allotment that we used to hear so much about. This new British disease of polarised extremes; enough of that. Starmer’s staid technocracy was to be the cure.

Yet a long exposure to Covid has mutated the Johnson government, and the Starmer vaccine now displays a vastly reduced efficacy from that expected in laboratory studies. Opposing the Tory Brexit deal could have been irresponsible and led to a no deal outcome, so he didn’t oppose it, and then it happened, and now he can’t really say anything about it at all. In his big speech last week, he didn’t even mention it. On Covid, meanwhile, he is equally afraid of rocking the boat, which means he doesn’t, which means the only opposition that worries the government is the one from its own backbenches.

Fundamentally, what Starmer lacks is the ability to project the idea that what Britain really needs is for the government to fall messily apart - right now, Brexit chaos, lockdown and vaccine rollout notwithstanding - and to be replaced by him, instead. A zealot or a bullshitter could manage it. In the same situation, Jeremy Corbyn or Nigel Farage or even Boris Johnson himself would certainly try. Starmer, instead, just wrings his hands, transparently aware that things could be much, much worse, but without the cavalier swagger required to pretend that he, personally, could immediately make them much better. And the fact that this might be true, I’m afraid, is neither here nor there. Because what, I ask you once again, is the point of that?

Pistol_Pete posted:

Well the thing is, I'm not sure there will be a period of crippling austerity. The Tories have got into the habit of splashing money around... and they rather seem to like it. I can easily imagine a newly-confident Johnson, boosted by a successful reopening of society, gleefully investing in industries and opening new universities and stuff. Meanwhile, Labour would be stood off to one side, gloomily shaking their heads, muttering about the need for fiscal responsibility and generally coming across as a bunch of joyless gits. Readers of this thread will be familiar enough with what Starmer and Dodds are like and how they view politics: is it really so unrealistic to imagine Johnson cheekily outflanking them on the left?

Answers Me posted:

It absolutely is, isn’t it. Everything’s going to be hosed for ever. Feels like people are just going to gladly accept the inevitable ‘we must pay back the cost of dealing with the pandemic’ turbo austerity that is inevitably going to follow after a brief period of extra spending

Pistol_Pete posted:

is it really so unrealistic to imagine Johnson cheekily outflanking them on the left?

Jose posted:

Lol

https://twitter.com/TheIDSmiths/status/1363903973267300352?s=09

Answers Me posted:

https://twitter.com/jasebyjason/status/1363908521742499845?s=21

It absolutely is, isn’t it. Everything’s going to be hosed for ever. Feels like people are just going to gladly accept the inevitable ‘we must pay back the cost of dealing with the pandemic’ turbo austerity that is inevitably going to follow after a brief period of extra spending

Starsnostars posted:

How long until Sir Boris Johnson?

multijoe posted:

Every photojournalist in the country is going to be on the prowl on 23/06 looking to take the defining image of jubilation that epitomises the end of the Covid-era

sinky posted:

multijoe posted:

Every photojournalist in the country is going to be on the prowl on 23/06 looking to take the defining image of jubilation that epitomises the end of the Covid-era

Answers Me posted:

https://twitter.com/jasebyjason/status/1363908521742499845?s=21

It absolutely is, isn’t it. Everything’s going to be hosed for ever. Feels like people are just going to gladly accept the inevitable ‘we must pay back the cost of dealing with the pandemic’ turbo austerity that is inevitably going to follow after a brief period of extra spending

Barry Foster posted:

This is literally what's happening