Papers who are putting "selfish" in the headline are probably making this message less effective. (But it may be a popular message with those who dont need persuading)
While "elite cues" matter on issues like vaccines, and mistakes have been made, there is a lot of misinformed nonsense being talked about how vaccine hesitancy works in different countries. (Eg "Single-handedly" is demonstrably simply wrong here).
We have conparative vaccine attitudes before the comments. This was growth in pro-vaccine sentiment from November to January. France is a consistent outlier for hesitancy but was going up from very low base before Macron comment. Germany less of a rise before regulator spoke
Why is France a consistent outlier? Academic research suggests French attitudes to vaccines (before Covid) were significantly damaged longterm by the mainstreaming of scepticism during controversy from mishandling of 2009 avian flu vaccine procurement.
I obvs do appreciate the value of sporting metaphor for public comms. But if we are three goals up on Covid now, it surely can't be three-nil. (Maybe its 6-3 or something? After following on, a set or two down, etc etc!!)
Of course, we almost never see it go 3-4 from three-nil.
But, if we were two-down, yet now have bounced back to lead three-two in extra-time, then the need for caution and vigilance to not get pulled back into a replay of lockdown would be a most valid metaphorical warning.
He may, in all fairness, have in mind the QPR v Partisan Belgrade UEFA cup tie of 1984, where Rangers won 6-2 in the first leg before going out on away goals
Speaker has made a bad decision on the principle (though the practice can be negotiated). It is a legitimate research topic to find out if employers, landlords discriminate by protected characteristics. It can not be a contempt of parliament to find out if elected MPs do so.
Prime Ministers including David Cameron and Theresa May have been clear about the value of such research (eg CV studies). Opportunity cost should not be onerous. Potential value is high if done well. ESRC or relevant voices should challenge this. EHRC could take a view too.
Indeed, Commons ought to itself have a project (with research partner) to conduct such research on annual basis, eg for intern places & employment opps & maybe correspondence. Knowledge of such research findings can audit & shift culture of how institutions respond to citizens.
New report from @rakibehsan has an ICM poll boost of 558 Black British respondents, and a general poll of 1000 people. As the author notes, 3% Black British population under-surveyed, a minority among the under-surveyed ethnic minority groups
On its headline question - is Black Lives Matter a voice for Black Britons - ICM data says, on balance, Yes. Personal views differ, but by a 4-1 margin (59% positive, 14% negative) Black British respondents saw the 2020 BLM anti-racism protests as + for race relations in the UK
The report also shows a plurality of the general population saw the Black Lives Matter protests as net positive (across nations/regions), though much more decisively in London. This mixed but net positive picture is in line with most (but not all) other survey findings.
Encouraging. A strong advance in pro-vaccine norms, lifting willingness/closing gaps among more hesitant groups (class, ethnic minority). These look like narrow & weak partisan political effects in UK in contrast to US (dramatic major party gap),Europe (populist party supporters)
A lot (most) hesitancy was weak and has shifted to pro-vaccine sentiment since the Autumn among 3/4 who were unlikely. There are big gains in confidence if focus on the hesitant, not the narrow anti-vaccine core of the last 5-7% or so.
This evidence suggests that approaches to tackling hesitancy should be practical, proactive, local and confident about growing pro-vaccine sentiment & efforts to reach everybody. (Should shift some of the discourse, which risks over-amplifying hesitancy)
Free Speech Union proposes that, as the "simplest solution" the FA should ban any footballers from taking a knee (!) It also argues that fans who boo the gesture should not be sanctioned. But its preferred/proposed free speech solution is a ban on the knee, over a ban on neither.
There is a logic in FSU defending taking a knee (free speech) and defending support of it (speech) and opposition (counter-speech). It is a surprising departure to see its initial proposal being to curtail speech, on grounds it is political.
The FSU - in mooting the proposal to ban taking a knee - are appealing to the rules which were (disproportionately) used by Fifa to ban England & Scotland wearing poppies, until common sense prevailed on not banning the poppy.