I would appreciate it @afneil if you would either delete or correct the tweet claiming I have "had to backtrack". I have not changed my statement but instead reiterated and explained it a number of times. Please do not misrepresent my views.
@afneil For example @afneil this explains why the context of Webbe's situation is relevant. As I'm sure a veteran political journalist such as yourself will recognise:
Today's report of the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities looks very much like an example of the "politics of racism" which @ProfSobolewska discussed at length in Brexitland.
@ProfSobolewska Antiracism is a losing issue for the Conservatives, who have for 50 plus years been less trusted on the issue than Labour (and for good reason - all significant antiracism legislation passed by Labour). Yet dismissing racism is also a losing issue for them, too - so what to do?
@ProfSobolewska The obvious answer is what we see today - acknowledging racism as an issue, while seeking (a) to play up (real) areas of progress and tell a positive story and (b) minimise attention to (real) areas of continuing discrimination and disadvantage
When I was tweeting a little while ago about how absurd health authorities' pausing of AZ was I had a lot of people in my replies saying the pause was precautionary and to "help build public confidence in the vaccine".
Who could have predicted that the public would respond to a strong signal from their health authorities that there might be an issue? Who could have predicted that subsequent reassurances wouldn't be heard? IDK, anyone who's ever followed a moral panic about vaccines maybe.
What weight did these bureaucrats put on the variable "this might collapse public confidence in the vaccine" when making their "precautionary principle" decision?
Wouldn’t it be useful to have a recent case study to test the rationality of regulators on this stuff. Like, IDK, just spitballing here, a regulator banning use of the same vaccine for over 65s based on nothing at all?
Or, random top of the head scenario, health officials in a large European country anonymously leaking to that country’s paper of record false information about the same vaccine’s effectiveness? Which the journalist in Q never addresses or apologises for?
"UKIP, but tax cuts instead of immigration cuts". There's always been a chunk of Con activsts (& MPs) who like this idea. I'm not sure there's an electoral market for it, but thanks to Tice we get to find out.
Problem is that there is always the confounding hypothesis: "UKIP is Farage and Farage is UKIP". But then that causal line works both ways. Maybe Farage is departing politics because he knows this recipe is doomed to fail, rather than its failure being due to his departure.
FWIW, in my own research on UKIP economic right wing ideology was seldom a strong predictor of support. Immigration, national ID and the EU did all of the work. As we show in Brexitland, Brexit was similar - identity and social attitudes strongly predict Leave, econ atts don't
One year in, and still the message that outdoors is just vastly safer than indoors still hasn't got through. Let people hang around in parks. The risk is tiny.
"super-spreading—the biggest driver of the pandemic—appears to be an exclusively indoor phenomenon. I’ve been tracking every report I can find for the past year, and have yet to find a confirmed super-spreading event that occurred solely outdoors".FFS let ppl have their park cans