Category Archives: News and Politics

Current affairs, madnesses of government, politics and politicians

Re-moaner Gauke still moaning

David Gauke, ejected from the Conservative Party because of his repeated failure to accept the 2016 referendum and the policies of his party, is STILL whining about Brexit.

This time it’s delays at the Port of Dover, which he attributes to Brexit because of border checks.

He tweeted “If we were in the EU, the French would not need to do individual passport checks. If no individual passport checks, the process at Dover would be quicker. The Dover queues are, therefore, partly caused by Brexit. Not a contentious point, surely?”

He must be referring to a different Europe to the one Grumpy was a frequent visitor to since the the UK’s joining the EU. Whether at Gare du Nord using the Eurostar, by sea or at airports, Grumpy never once entered any European country via the UK without his passport being checked at the border. The fact is that as the UK never joined the Schengen scheme, passports were always necessary. This is the case today.

Gauke is clearly as ignorant of EU travel requirements as he is disloyal to the party that sponsored him as an MP. In case he reads this, he can check to get his facts right here

https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/travel/entry-exit/eu-citizen/index_en.htm

… where all is explained. Even if we were still in the EU passports would still be required, as per the official website “When travelling to or from a non-Schengen country you must show a valid ID or passport.“

“World Leading” hyperbole I

A favourite expression of politicians seeking to boost their flagging credentials is to describe some manifestation of their efforts as ‘world leading’. Were it to be true, it is a wonderfully opposition proof accolade – you can’t do better than lead the world. It has been used even about the NHS, an organisation which does not respond to emergency calls, has less beds per head of population than Azerbaijan or Romania, and has 6 million citizens waiting for treatment. Yet politicians such as Cameron and the NHS itself refer to delusional goals of ‘world leading’ status, when the reality is that even getting to an acceptable state seems currently unattainable.

Another manifestation is that when world conflicts arise, the UK feels the urge to respond as it might have done a century and a half ago and send in the Navy, when in fact it has less active military personal on a per capita basis than Burundi or Chad (where?). Surprisingly perhaps, it has only one tenth of the number of battle tanks Ukraine has, and significantly less aircraft than Pakistan – both countries which receive largess from taxpayers in aid from the UK.

The reality is that – which a few key and vital exceptions – the UK is not world leading anything. The plain truth is that the UK has little in the way of land resources, even fewer natural resources (apart from maybe coal which is a non-starter), and chronic manpower shortage. However, for something over 300 years, the UK was able to transcend these limitations by stealing resources from weak countries which were subdued by military force and impose an effective dictatorship. Wars were even fought to maintain its position as probably the largest Narco-state the world has seen and kill huge numbers of Chinese natives with opium.

Britain’s apex state status essentially came to an end by 1914, and the Suez crisis of 1957, (which underlined that foreign policy was subject to US approval) put the final nail in the coffin of one of history’s great – and it was huge- Empires.

However, the innate assumption of superiority stemming from the days of the Raj has left its cultural imprint on the Civil Service and some politicians to this day. It’s the feeling that the UK is still a ‘world power’. But the reality is that – in maybe the ultimate irony – the GDP of India is now greater than that of the UK, which languishes in 31st place in world nominal GDP, way behind (as another humiliation) Ireland at no 3.

Grumpy, believes that shedding this historical baggage would open up the opportunity for the country to take another approach and exploit some key assets it does have and find a creditable place in the world, matching our peers in countries of similar size and wealth.

There are areas where the UK could (and in fact does in some cases) rank as world class, as say in certain classes of research. To be world class, however, requires excellence, and that comes from fostering exceptional people. With a curious national trait to shun exceptionalism, the growing woke sector equates this with elitism and works hard to destroy such opportunities. In part II of this post, these opportunities – and the impediments to realising them will be discussed.

Incompetent Barclay should be ashamed

Steve Barclay, Minister responsible for the lack of Health and Social Care, stated that elderly people who fall or have an accident would probably have to get to hospital on their own.

So imagine a pensioner who has fallen and sustained a broken bone, and is lying immobile on a frozen or wet street in freezing weather The NHS web site says that people with such breaks should not be moved until they have been seen by a qualified medic. So how does Barclay imagine the injured person would get to treatment ?

Worse still, even before the current round of strikes, senior board members from various NHS Trusts have said that the public should not call 999 unless an accident is life threatening.

So, if that edict were followed, as the injury outlined above could not be classed as life threatening until hypothermia sets into the victim at about 03:00 in the morning, they or a passer by should not call 999. There is no other conclusion from the statements issued by the government and the NHS.

Maybe the person could call their GP on their mobile ? No, as a receptionist would tell them that (a) all the days appointments had gone, and that they should call at 08:00 next morning but anyway (b) they do not have the capability of dealing with fractures anyway, so go to A+E.

This is truly surreal circular madness, and the hapless Barclay must know this as he issued words that the only logical conclusion from following them verbatim would be that Granny would be left to die in the street. But, heh ho, it’s a sacrifice worth making to bash the unions with.

This is what the NHS has become. In 1948, the then new NHS took over 480,000 beds. It is now around 160,000 with a much larger population, and the UK has one of the very worst ratios of beds per capita of any European county. The next time Grumpy hears one of these reality blind and deaf politicians utter words about ’40 new hospitals’ and ‘World Class’ he will not be able to restrain himself from banging his head against a wall. Sadly, he would be unable to get any treatment from the resulting injury.

Destruction of two millennia of core justice by Truss

The portrait to the left is of Roman emperor Justinian I (AD 482 to 565), and his key contribution to Roman life was the radical revision of the then core principles of law. {It’s worth mentioning that there was a significant element for the protection of women, should the following discourse lead to the accusation of his being a misogynist.)

A central edict was “Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat” governing evidence in trials. In English, it is “Proof lies on him who asserts, not on him who denies” – in other words, an accused is innocent until proven guilty.

Liz Truss has shown her disdain for this principle – and indeed for basic justice – by subscribing to an approach hitherto adopted by certain vocal social pressure groups (and it has to be said by opposition MP’s and the Guardian newspaper), namely that some nameless accuser is all that is required to sentence the accused.

She sacked her Trade Minister, Connor Burns, on being informed of an allegation against him. Mr Burns was not given any information about the complaint, nor the identity of his accuser, and he was not asked to provide any information. The length of time between allegation and the sacking clearly did not apparently allow any investigation. A Number 10 statement said “Following a complaint of serious misconduct, the prime minister has asked Conor Burns MP to leave the government with immediate effect. The prime minister took direct action on being informed of this allegation”

This speaks volumes to the illiberal nature of Truss’s character and approach to governing. Previously largely restricted to the “meToo” harridans and the ‘Trans’ lobby, she has formalised the approach of abandoning “due process”. Evidence, the opportunity to cross examine, a fair trial by an independent judiciary and by one’s fellow men/women, do not now appear to be required components of a just structure. At least in Russia the accused got a show trial before they were shot.

{There is a clear ‘moral hazard’ here. Ms Truss could just slip a waitress in the Portcullis House cafeteria a few twenties to claim she was slapped on the bottom by Gove, and she could dispose of his Machiavellian subversions. The reversal of Justinian’s codex is an essential building block for totalitarianism.}

A turning point in this development was surely the act of using Parliamentary privilege by Peter Hain to name Philip Green as having been accused of some form of ‘inappropriate behaviour, when there was at that time an injunction in place by the court to prevent such disclosure. Hain (a convicted criminal) claimed it was in the public interest so to do, in spite of having a pecuniary interest in the outcome, and in spite of the plaintiffs having received substantial sums in settlement and signed legally binding agreements not to discuss it.

This preening, hypocritical individual emboldened the accusation = guilty approach to justice firstly for the feminist and trans brigades, but now it seems it has been adopted as policy by the Goverment.

Come back, Boris (and himself a victim the this trend) all is forgiven.

Truss guns for Putin

Liz Truss, in her pretend role as all an powerful foreign secretary of a global power, has been proposing that the Putin should be in irons in the dock in The Haig, being tried by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for war crimes. Like most of the external initiatives of the UK, it produces good domestic headlines, often aids the USA’s excesses by playing the useful village idiot, but in reality (like ‘net zero’) has no meaningful impact whatsoever on the outcomes in the real world. Setting aside the patently obvious attempts by Truss to play to the gallery for her (no doubt) forthcoming bid to succeed Bojo, her proclamations require more robust analysis.

Firstly, it’s worth noting that the ICC does not have universal support. The country leading the sanctions against Putin, the USA, has not ratified the ‘Rome Statute’ which governs the activities of the court. Not just that, but it has pro-actively impeded any investigation involving the USA or its citizens. Donald Trump addressed the UN General Assembly and stated that the “United States will provide no support or recognition to the International Criminal Court. As far as America is concerned the ICC has no jurisdiction, no legitimacy, and no authority.” That’s pretty clear, and appears to have been overlooked by Ms Truss. Putin’s lawyers might just bring that out against any attempt to arraign him.

It might also be noted that the UK shrugs its shoulders at international justice by ignoring rulings by the International Court of Justice (the UN’s highest court) with regard to the Chagos islands. whose inhabitants were banished to allow the US to build a bomber base there. Mauritius is considering referring the UK for crimes against humanity to the ICC, the very self same body Truss wishes Putin to be tried at for similar crimes. As the Keir Starmer might say, “it’s one rule for us, and another rule for them”

Secondly, accusations of war crimes – as with most other humanitarian transgressions -always tend to be suffocatingly hypocritical; “let he who is without sin cast the first stone” springs to mind. Especially in this woke age, when the world starts examining historical perspectives, the callous realpolitik of the US exercising its position of the world’s dominant power is hardly the voice of pious judgement.

One act cited as evidencing war crimes was the use of cluster munitions, which are subject of an international treaty, the “Convention on Cluster Munitions”. One non signatory to this is Saudi Arabia – a key US ally, where there is evidence that they have been used by them in the Yemen, including weapons sold to them by the British and the USA. Moreover, the USA has not ratified the cluster convention, and indeed has taken steps under Trump to continue their use, along with land mines

. A Martian reading this would be taken aback by this sanctimonious cant. It’s as though a judge trying a drugs case took a break to take a snort of the white stuff. Grumpy carries no banners for Putin, but the reality is that military conflict is messy and In the ‘fog of war’, Stuff Happens, as Donald Rumsfeld once observed about bad things happening in Iraq. Surely the focus should be longer term steps to create a framework for European stability in particular and the world in general, rather than grandstanding in Parliament. One reason for a more strategic perspective is that these events are just a rehearsal for the inevitable China / USA showdown.

Patriotic vetting and hypocrisy

The Guardian underlined its slightly odd take on the world (presumably suffering under the delusion that the UK had any real impact globally of the affairs of same) by bemoaning the erosion of democracy in Hong Kong saying “China’s top law making body has formally unveiled plans to ensure that only “patriots” can govern Hong Kong, as Beijing tightens its grip on the city with electoral changes including a vetting process for all parliamentary candidates”.

As Grumpy has pointed out several times in this blog, the writer seems to have set aside the fact that Hong Kong was ruled by the British for 155 years as a colony, with precisely zero ability of the citizens to vote for their leader, or have independent control of the laws they were subject to. Even worse, this state of affairs came about because the UK took the territory by two acts of war, to establish their right to act as a narco state and kill Chinese mainland citizens with heroin. This is hardly a position of holding the moral high ground.

The objection the Guardian raises is the wish of the Chinese government to ensure that those elected (democracy ?) to rule the territory recognise that it is, and will continue to be, integral with China in perpetuity, and not to work to subvert that fact, which is not open to a local government to change.

The Guardian, as well as setting aside the brutal colonial past of the UK, conveniently ignores that the United Kingdom too enforces the same exactly the same undertakings on members of its own parliament. Sein Fein’s democratically elected members are unable to take a seat at the Westminster, because they have refused to take the Oath of Allegiance to the Head of State, which they are required by law to take. This seems to mirror the Chinese position in that it ensures that only patriots can participate in the government and is clearly a form of “vetting” – just as in Hong Kong.

Many of the pro-democracy groups in Hong Kong have a stated goal to subvert Chinese authority and push for independence and secession. As Grumpy pointed out elsewhere in this blog, European citizens in Catalonia, Spain, are current spending years in prison for merely seeking to hold an illustrative referendum – something the Chinese wish to avoid. Might Nicola Sturgeon also find herself incarcerated if she declares UDI and holds a referendum, if Boris follows the example of his European friends ?

Bizarre COVID logic

The German vaccine commission has rejected the AstraZeneca (AZ) vaccine for people over the age of 65, based on the lack of available data about its safety or efficacy. Both the UK and AZ PR machines creaked into action to refute the assertions. Their response, however, was opaque and misleading and designed to obfuscate the real issues identified by the Germans.

The PR lines of defence were twofold. In the first, there was an admission of the factual basis of the German interpretation by Mary Ramsay, the Head of Immunisations at Public Health England (PHE) said “There were too few cases in older people in the AstraZeneca trials to observe precise levels of protection in this group” – aka “we have no idea”- but that admission was inevitable since it was a matter of record. She then went on to say that “immune responses were very reassuring”.

The second line of defence was rather more bizarre. To quote one source “Their (Grumpy: the Germans) assessment is that effectiveness is not yet demonstrated for over 65s. They have not said the vaccine is ineffective for over 65s“. This is rather like saying that “we have no data on whether drinking drain cleaner will harm you, but in the absence of any information to the contrary we feel it is reasonable to recommend doing so to all pensioners.” This is a variation on the the Bernard Russel ‘Teapot’ analogy that “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”

As an example of the above, MHRA Chief Executive Dr June Raine said “current evidence does not suggest any lack of protection against Covid-19 in people aged 65 or over”, which since there is no convincing evidence falls into the logical ‘proving a negative” trap.

Both defence lines were also made opaque by firstly conflation designed to mislead. Ramsay, at PHE said “both AstraZeneca and Pfizer … provide high levels of protection” implying that the two could be equated in terms of effectiveness; in fact AZ was only 62% effective in the age groups they did test, against more than 90% for the Pfizer version. They are not even vaguely comparable, and of course they have no sound data on whether it is effective in the over 70’s.

The second aspect of opacity was to couch all defences in qualitative terms, rather than references to quantitative data – always the refuge of those seeking to mislead. This is especially the case where the UK Medical Regulator relied on unpublished data in its decision to grant AZ authorisation. What does ‘high levels of protection’ or ‘reassuring’ mean ? No-one knows. It’s a “hooray” word used by politicians or their lapdogs to support the otherwise unsupportable.

Grumpy pointed out this lack of data and irrational authorisation based upon it in a post here . He concluded that post by saying “Readers should be clear; taking this juice and reverting to normal living if you are a pensioner, is a risk which is, in Grumpy’s view, simply not worth taking.” He stands by that view.

Oxford obfuscation<<< updated on 31.12.20

It is the view of Grumpy that there has been significant intervention by the government to subvert medical opinions in the interests of avoiding political embarrassment. In response to the decision to have a 3 month gap between the first and second doses, Pfizer have issued a statement, as follows

“Data from the phase 3 study demonstrated that, although partial protection from the vaccine appears to begin as early as 12 days after the first dose, two doses of the vaccine are required to provide the maximum protection against the disease, a vaccine efficacy of 95%. There are no data to demonstrate that protection after the first dose is sustained after 21 days”

In other words, Matt Hancock is ignoring data from the inventor of the Pfizer vaccine that underlines there is NO evidence that a 3 month gap will provide any protection for the majority of that period. as set out below, this is driven by the vaccine delivery schedule and the need for political points. This has all the makings of a future scandal.

(Initial post as follows) Matt Hancock announced this morning (30.12.20) that the Oxford vaccine had been approved for use in the UK. Seemingly good news, but it very soon became apparent that the implementation plan was almost wholly driven by political considerations rather than a well planned strategy to reduce COVID. Further, given vaccination is planned to start in January, their are many outstanding questions about more or less every aspect of its use.

Dosage : It is as yet unclear as to whether the dosage regime will be a half dose (‘LD’) followed by a full dose (‘SD), or whether it will be two full doses. This is of more than academic relevance, since the SD+SD regime is only about 60% effective, which is way, way worse (although cheaper – perhaps a factor) than the competing Pfizer and Moderna vaccine alternatives. The alternative LD+SD option was stated to be up to 90% effective, but as it was not tested on anyone over 55, whether it will work at all for the most vulnerable 60+ years cohort of the population is just not known, as admitted by all parties. (See http://grumpy.eastover.org.uk/oxford-vaccine/ )

Protocol : All the tests submitted as a basis for approval for the vaccine to the UK regulator, the MHRA, were based on two doses 28 days apart. It has now been decided that the doses will be separated by 3 months. Grumpy can find no evidence of whether this regime, plucked from mid air, is as effective or not. Note how the LD / SD variation had a huge impact on effectiveness, so it is baffling how the MHRA approved a plan which had simply no material testing evidence to support not only its efficacy, but whether it was safe or would even work as assumed – and it is assumption. Previous documentation on the dosing has stated (as late as the date of this entry) that “two doses of vaccine, four weeks apart, are needed to to offer best protection”; when did this change, and why? The answer lies, Grumpy believes, in the fact that the government’s own numbers on vaccine delivery schedules and the rate of vaccination simply do not add up, and this is a fudge to avoid Hancock embarrassment over yet another failure.

Numbers : Hancock spoke on the BBC Today program on 30.12 and stated that 1m vaccinations per week would be done from January 4th. This implies that by February 4th, 4m people will have been vaccinated. However, bulk deliveries of vaccine (40m doses) will not be available for 2-3 months (according to AstraZeneca), so these numbers simply don’t add up, as the first delivery of 4m units does not have sufficient doses. The inevitable fudge comes from the sudden change in plan to separate the doses by 3 months, thus doubling the number of first shots available. The delivery schedule had already slipped back by many weeks, so Grumpy thinks that pulling back from the 1m per week target is all but inevitable – testing/tracking all over again. The switch to a 3 month gap for no stated medical reason is thus driven entirely by political motives, and Hancock sought to bury this the fanfare resulting from approval.

Timing : Pascal Soriot, CEO of AstraZeneca, stated on the Today program on 30.12 that the Company could deliver “up to” 2m doses per week. The population of the UK is 67m, so (assuming the 2m doses included both first and second jabs) the population would be vaccinated at best by April 2022. Allowing for the 30m Pfizer doses ordered (but not yet fully delivered) , that would bring completion forward somewhat, with the caveat that neither company has a record of delivering on time. That timing is far short of Matt Hancock’s less than credible statement on Radio 4 ‘s Today program that the UK would be “out of this by the spring.” This is surely a statement he will come to regret, but as Grumpy has pointed out before he has a habit of offering unnecessary hostages to fortune. (See http://grumpy.eastover.org.uk/foot-shooting/ )

Europe : The EMA (EU regulator) has not approved the Oxford vaccine, stating that there is no basis for granting even a conditional licence. Are the standards less demanding in the UK ? Does the European regulator know something the UK regulator does not, or is discounting?

New mutation : As of 30.12, AstraZeneca informed Reuters that its Covid-19 vaccine is potentially effective against the new coronavirus variant, with studies underway to fully analyse the impact of the mutation. Studies underway ? They don’t know yet whether it will work on a variant pushing daily cases over 50,000 or not? Is this one more element of evidence pointing to the the UK regulator being premature, which raises the issue of government pressure and interference to get it approved ?

So, in summary, here are the questions to ask

Will the dosing regime be LD+SD or SD+SD ? This has a huge impact on how the individual should plan his/her lifestyle post vaccination
If the dosing is LD+SD, will more tests be done to confirm its effectiveness (or otherwise) before rolling it out to the 60+ cohort, or do the government plan to use the next batch of 70+ citizens as test mice?
Why was the gap between doses suddenly changed to 3 months, when all tests were done on 28 days ? Is there any quantitative evidence (certainly none is published) that this would be an effective protocol, or even work ?
How can the conflict between stated delivery schedules of Oxford vaccine and the claimed rate of vaccination be explained ?
Given the CEO of AstraZeneca’s statement on the ceiling on dose deliveries, how does the implied time to complete UK vaccination reconcile with Hancock’s optimism on being “out of it by the spring” (whatever that might mean) ?