So I decided to spend some time with some of the Sunday papers to try to make sense of where things stand with Brexit, including the parliamentary situation. Here are a few points of note from The Sunday Telegraph and The Observer, in case of interest to anyone else. (1/12)
Suella Braverman on her resignation in the ST. Brexit negotiated by small-c conservative civil servants exceeding their mandate without political accountability. Fine, but feels like a bit of a dereliction on the part of DeExEU ministers, dare I suggest? (2/12)
Lots of Tories talking about a leadership challenge but few yet prepared to put their names to it (Sunday Telegraph). (Indeed, the likelihood of a confidence vote seems to have receded since the papers went to press.) (3/12)
Much stronger rhetoric though from outside the parliamentary Conservative Party (Sunday Telegraph). (4/12)
Odds against May departing before the end of the year currently around 5/4. Favourites to replace her are largely of the harder Brexit orientation (Sunday Telegraph). (5/12)
Various factions are pushing for some variation on renegotiation, something closer to Norway, etc., which might secure a Commons majority (but in defiance of both major parties’ current leaders). (6/12)
Keir Starmer looks to proposes legislation to prevent a no-deal exit! No mention in this coverage of what Corbyn’s position on this might be. (Observer) (7/12)
A useful flow diagram from the Sunday Telegraph, together with the Observer’s take on what might happen next. Cf. the article from the Centre for European Reform that I tweeted yesterday:
A strangely apposite play advert amidst the Sunday Telegraph’s Brexit coverage #quixotic (9/12)
Most important flaw for pro-Brexit Tories seems to be potential EU veto re. extended transition deal pending settlement of Irish border question. Indefinite purgatory without (ironically) an equivalent to Article 50! (Sunday Telegraph) (10/12)
As things stand, parliamentary support for the deal looks unlikely (Observer)—though clearly things remain in flux. (11/12)
Where the papers (unsurprisingly) differ in their analyses is of what should happen next. ST’s commentators argue for various pro-Brexit steps (renegotiation; leadership challenge; hard Brexit); Observer hardens its call for a second referendum. (12/12)
As a slightly more light-hearted addendum: the Sunday Telegraph shades the battle of the cartoons, run close by Riddell's play on words and grotesque unicorn in the Observer. (13/12)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Scientific debate around Covid-19 on Twitter and beyond has become increasingly polarised & unpleasant in recent weeks. It’s not a great look. Ironically, I think it’s less down to scientific disagreement, & more down to the limits of scientific knowledge. A few thoughts. (1/16)
#AcademicTwitter is rarely the civilised, courteous affair that people outside academia might expect of university researchers, but since the pandemic started it’s been particularly rough-and-tumble. (2/16)
I think some of the ill-tempered flare-ups are down to the same pressures facing everyone. Long hours and lack of face-to-face interaction with colleagues take their toll. Recently, though, I think the quality of Covid-19 debate in particular has got worse. (3/16)
A quick preview of my part of a panel presentation with @rwjdingwall & @DrEsmee at the virtual @BSAMedsoc conference this Thursday. You can register at the link below. We’ll be discussing science, policy & society, with face mask policy as a focus. (1/5)
Mask policies have rapidly expanded in the UK & elsewhere. Wearing a mask is seen as the right thing to do. Opposition to mask wearing is portrayed as irrational, reactionary, anti-scientific posturing: see this New Statesman piece, for example. (2/5) newstatesman.com/politics/uk/20…
Masks have become the latest front in the war between the conservative right and the progressive left. Caught in the crossfire are groups for whom enforced mask wearing has important downsides, including often marginalised and seldom-heard groups. (3/5)
Stage 1: There’s nothing in here that’s useful and although I’ve got about 30 different codes, each of them has just one excerpt of data in it so they’re really just interesting things that people have said or done. Why am I an academic?
Stage 2: Ooh, it turns out that two of those codes are really interesting, and although 28 of them have withered and died, these two are blossoming and need to be subdivided into 60 more-nuanced codes.
I've seen plenty of this. But I worry about the opposite as well - that scientists/academics limit themselves to what they can truly claim to be experts on, which by definition tends to be very limited. (1/4)
I've also seen people getting bashed on the basis of ‘this -ology has nothing to say about that -ology’, which is a pretty lazy way of invalidating opposing views. It also doesn’t really do justice to science as an interdisciplinary/collaborative effort. (2/4)
On the other hand, scientists in higher-status disciplines do tend to over-reach more often, and that carries its own risks in terms of the balance of the debate, and the legitimacy ascribed to different disciplinary perspectives. (3/4)
Just a short comment on the face masks policy question. It's generating far more heat than light, on Twitter at least. A polarised, personalised exchange is not helpful to debate or to public health. Therefore this will be my last word on it, at least for a while. (1/4)
I don't think there's much point in engaging with someone who characterises our work as ‘mischief’, who dismisses the contribution of an entire discipline as indifferent armchair commentary, and who (deliberately or otherwise) misconstrues the whole point of our paper. (2/4)
I really appreciate the constructive criticism in good faith of people on both sides of the debate who have engaged here. We’re developing our ideas further (with one or two new collaborators), and our thinking has been strengthened by your critique. (3/4)
These headlines look like they were written before the event. The BBC describes people flocking to Brighton beach, and reports “more than 3000 people” in Brockwell Park, Brixton. The newspapers offer similar accounts of collective irresponsibility. (1/4) bbc.co.uk/news/uk-521720…
That makes it sound like the place was thronging with people, cheek by jowl. In practice, 3000 people over the course of a day in a park of 125 acres looks more like this. (2/4)
The park has now reportedly been closed. There is talk of an outright ban on outdoors exercise.
The lockdown and social distancing may be working: the curve is starting to plateau. Reactionary, oppressive measures will hinder, not help. (3/4) bbc.co.uk/news/uk-521720…