The Nandy-doubters haven’t been following her closely enough.
She’s Worcester woman’s younger neice, with a good education. She’s passionate, but doesn’t frighten the horses.
A belligerent person like Jess Philips or Angela Rayner might “bring the fight to the Tories” but will turn off middle Britain.
It's interesting how just about every Lab member on here (inc me) voted for Nandy as leader.
I’m not a labour member. Indeed, I have never voted for them. They are too statist for me.
But, yeh.
I know you aren't a member but I didn't know you'd never voted Labour. Gosh. Although actually, doesn't matter, what we need for next time is the most efficient anti-Con vote in each seat. That will, I hope, eject BoJo.
What you want is people who used not to vote labour, voting labour. Rather than people who used to vote labour, fucking off and joining the Tories. That may read a touch patronising, but if you feel patronised by it you are intellectually in the top 1% of Labour voters.
The coronavirus numbers this evening aren't inspiring - yet we can't go back. For too many people and you see it often on here, the very concept of a return to restrictions is anathema.
The prevailing ethos now is we "live with" the virus which I suppose we could have done in March 2020. We have nearly 80% of those aged 12 and above doubly vaccinated. In Newham, I estimate 55,000 people over 12 are not yet doubly vaccinated so there's still plenty of fuel for the virus.
I confess I'm starting to get concerned about the pace of the booster rollout. @MaxPB was waxing lyrical about getting 2.5 million vaccinated per week - I see little sign of that currently. Mrs Stodge and I are approaching five months since our second vaccination and I'm getting concerned the immunity the second vaccination provided will be wearing off in a few weeks.
Unless we get the booster programme moving, we'll be back in a bad position with weakly protected or unprotected people mixing indoors as we move into late autumn and winter.
Much of Europe is moving faster on both kids and boosters; if we are not careful the position last spring will reverse, and even PB Tories will have to stop going on about our vaccination triumph…
It’s too late, isn’t it? We’re behind Western Europe now.
I say this provocatively in the hopes someone will correct me.
It’s in Dr Campbell’s latest video. Our natural immunity is lower because people were vaccinated longer ago - hence we are to an extent victims of our early success - exacerbated by not much having happened since. Even older Americans are often boosted up, now.
Exclusive by me in @theipaper: Sage has met just 3 times since July, is only meeting once a month, because of a lessened demand from ministers for their advice. This is despite fears of a winter wave, with cases, admissions and deaths all rising right now:
Probably because life is back to normal for most people. Morbidity is a fraction of what it was pre-vaccine and most people are learning to live with an endemic virus. In much of London, it’s like the pandemic never happened.
It's different to that in Devon, where I visited last week. More oldies maybe. Where I live in Midlands it's between those two extremes I guess.
In Devon the ridiculous walk to the restaurant/cafe table then mask off thing is still alive and kicking. A friend, who broadly agrees with me over this, says he does it if he can see many others are wearing masks. When I asked why he said "conformity I guess - not because I think there is a point to it". So the previous stage of obedience to state authority is being replaced by an obedience to what is deemed polite.
I find both stages very worrying. As far as I am concerned it is no longer polite to wear a mask if you are vaccinated.
It's regarded as pretty serious down here in Surrey. The Royal Surrey Hospital up the road has declared a level 4 emergency - they are out of beds for all the cases pending. Note also:
With respect to Anabobazina and others - I think that what you'd like to be true is driving your assessment, but the more we behave as if the virus never happened, the worse the winter will be. And, as usual, the Government will doze along until they suddenly leap into emergency restrictions.
I generally agree, but the problem with leaping to emergency restrictions is that there is very little appetite out there for them. I went into Huntingdon for my flu jab this morning (followed by the obligatory run), and mask usage was very varied. Everyone in the pharmacy wore them; in other shops I was the only person. A woman was coughing her lungs up in one shop, sans mask, and without covering her face with her elbow or hand.
How quickly old habits return ...
If Labour think emergency restrictions are needed now, then they should be saying so, loudly, volubly and with certainty.
A clear Ministerial lead would be better even if one takes the opposite view and thinks things are basically fine. People really want clear advice.
I’m not sure as many people as you think want endless advice from politicians and/or the health lobby, especially given we are doing better than their best case scenario.
A lot of us - left and right - just want to be left to get on with our lives without the endless drumbeat, thanks.
I don't see any coherent 'health lobby'. The average GP or even CMO seems to know lots about drugs, nothing about preserving one's own health. So I stay away from them. Tom Watson ex-MP ignored NHS advice in order to recover his own health and reverse his type 2 diabetes.
Re Tom Watson that’s not really true. Nhs advice would be to lose weight, as this helps with type 2 diabetes. It maybe that his method (eliminating carbs?) is not the preferred nhs route, but it is certainly a well accepted method for rapid weight loss.
The coronavirus numbers this evening aren't inspiring - yet we can't go back. For too many people and you see it often on here, the very concept of a return to restrictions is anathema.
The prevailing ethos now is we "live with" the virus which I suppose we could have done in March 2020. We have nearly 80% of those aged 12 and above doubly vaccinated. In Newham, I estimate 55,000 people over 12 are not yet doubly vaccinated so there's still plenty of fuel for the virus.
I confess I'm starting to get concerned about the pace of the booster rollout. @MaxPB was waxing lyrical about getting 2.5 million vaccinated per week - I see little sign of that currently. Mrs Stodge and I are approaching five months since our second vaccination and I'm getting concerned the immunity the second vaccination provided will be wearing off in a few weeks.
Unless we get the booster programme moving, we'll be back in a bad position with weakly protected or unprotected people mixing indoors as we move into late autumn and winter.
Much of Europe is moving faster on both kids and boosters; if we are not careful the position last spring will reverse, and even PB Tories will have to stop going on about our vaccination triumph…
It’s too late, isn’t it? We’re behind Western Europe now.
I say this provocatively in the hopes someone will correct me.
tl;dr
UK has a big waning immunity problem — bigger than Western Europe because of starting vax earlier — which is much more likely than masks to explain UK’s ongoing higher case & death rates https://t.co/8ofsYZjYR2
Potentially we're heading for fairly deep doohdooh and the "it's over" attitude isn't helping.
1000 deaths a week is 10% of all deaths, roughly. I'm not sure we should be as chilled about this as we are; it feels like the borderline between "sad but hey-ho" and "f@#* this is bad".
Why should we not be chilled about ~1000 deaths a week? Close to ten times that many die of natural causes anyway every single week even pre-Covid and we never freaked out about that.
People will be dying until the end of humanity of one thing or another and as this is now endemic, we're never going to see zero Covid deaths again potentially.
The vaccines have done the job in giving us enough herd immunity to prevent exponential growth kicking off and overwhelming the NHS again, but there'll still be cases especially amongst antivaxxers and still be breakthrough illnesses that could kill off some elderly vulnerable people.
That can't and shouldn't be stopped.
I have a lot of sympathy with that view.
But what is infuriating is that the UK could have started on teenagers three months ago, and could have started really pushing boosters at the start of last month. If they had done both those things, then we wouldn't have started to have the hospitals filling.
And right now, the hospitals aren't too full. And it's OK. And we don't need to consider new measures. (And half term is just a week away.)
But the hospitalisation situation doesn't have to get that much worse before we do need to start worrying.
Yes absolutely the JCVI really screwed up and its good that Javid eventually said enough was enough and overruled them. We need sometimes to have politicians decide and not "experts" with their own transparent political agendas and that was a good call - and one Hancock should have made months sooner.
The coronavirus numbers this evening aren't inspiring - yet we can't go back. For too many people and you see it often on here, the very concept of a return to restrictions is anathema.
The prevailing ethos now is we "live with" the virus which I suppose we could have done in March 2020. We have nearly 80% of those aged 12 and above doubly vaccinated. In Newham, I estimate 55,000 people over 12 are not yet doubly vaccinated so there's still plenty of fuel for the virus.
I confess I'm starting to get concerned about the pace of the booster rollout. @MaxPB was waxing lyrical about getting 2.5 million vaccinated per week - I see little sign of that currently. Mrs Stodge and I are approaching five months since our second vaccination and I'm getting concerned the immunity the second vaccination provided will be wearing off in a few weeks.
Unless we get the booster programme moving, we'll be back in a bad position with weakly protected or unprotected people mixing indoors as we move into late autumn and winter.
Much of Europe is moving faster on both kids and boosters; if we are not careful the position last spring will reverse, and even PB Tories will have to stop going on about our vaccination triumph…
It’s too late, isn’t it? We’re behind Western Europe now.
I say this provocatively in the hopes someone will correct me.
It’s in Dr Campbell’s latest video. Our natural immunity is lower because people were vaccinated longer ago - hence we are to an extent victims of our early success - exacerbated by not much having happened since. Even older Americans are often boosted up, now.
If that were the case the data would show an increase in infection amongst older people. That's not the case at all.
The coronavirus numbers this evening aren't inspiring - yet we can't go back. For too many people and you see it often on here, the very concept of a return to restrictions is anathema.
The prevailing ethos now is we "live with" the virus which I suppose we could have done in March 2020. We have nearly 80% of those aged 12 and above doubly vaccinated. In Newham, I estimate 55,000 people over 12 are not yet doubly vaccinated so there's still plenty of fuel for the virus.
I confess I'm starting to get concerned about the pace of the booster rollout. @MaxPB was waxing lyrical about getting 2.5 million vaccinated per week - I see little sign of that currently. Mrs Stodge and I are approaching five months since our second vaccination and I'm getting concerned the immunity the second vaccination provided will be wearing off in a few weeks.
Unless we get the booster programme moving, we'll be back in a bad position with weakly protected or unprotected people mixing indoors as we move into late autumn and winter.
Much of Europe is moving faster on both kids and boosters; if we are not careful the position last spring will reverse, and even PB Tories will have to stop going on about our vaccination triumph…
It’s too late, isn’t it? We’re behind Western Europe now.
I say this provocatively in the hopes someone will correct me.
tl;dr
UK has a big waning immunity problem — bigger than Western Europe because of starting vax earlier — which is much more likely than masks to explain UK’s ongoing higher case & death rates https://t.co/8ofsYZjYR2
Potentially we're heading for fairly deep doohdooh and the "it's over" attitude isn't helping.
1000 deaths a week is 10% of all deaths, roughly. I'm not sure we should be as chilled about this as we are; it feels like the borderline between "sad but hey-ho" and "f@#* this is bad".
Why should we not be chilled about ~1000 deaths a week? Close to ten times that many die of natural causes anyway every single week even pre-Covid and we never freaked out about that.
People will be dying until the end of humanity of one thing or another and as this is now endemic, we're never going to see zero Covid deaths again potentially.
The vaccines have done the job in giving us enough herd immunity to prevent exponential growth kicking off and overwhelming the NHS again, but there'll still be cases especially amongst antivaxxers and still be breakthrough illnesses that could kill off some elderly vulnerable people.
That can't and shouldn't be stopped.
I have a lot of sympathy with that view.
But what is infuriating is that the UK could have started on teenagers three months ago, and could have started really pushing boosters at the start of last month. If they had done both those things, then we wouldn't have started to have the hospitals filling.
And right now, the hospitals aren't too full. And it's OK. And we don't need to consider new measures. (And half term is just a week away.)
But the hospitalisation situation doesn't have to get that much worse before we do need to start worrying.
And before anyone blames the government, the heart of the issues with boosters and kids is the jcvi, who wanted to vaccinate the world, not our kids.
The coronavirus numbers this evening aren't inspiring - yet we can't go back. For too many people and you see it often on here, the very concept of a return to restrictions is anathema.
The prevailing ethos now is we "live with" the virus which I suppose we could have done in March 2020. We have nearly 80% of those aged 12 and above doubly vaccinated. In Newham, I estimate 55,000 people over 12 are not yet doubly vaccinated so there's still plenty of fuel for the virus.
I confess I'm starting to get concerned about the pace of the booster rollout. @MaxPB was waxing lyrical about getting 2.5 million vaccinated per week - I see little sign of that currently. Mrs Stodge and I are approaching five months since our second vaccination and I'm getting concerned the immunity the second vaccination provided will be wearing off in a few weeks.
Unless we get the booster programme moving, we'll be back in a bad position with weakly protected or unprotected people mixing indoors as we move into late autumn and winter.
Much of Europe is moving faster on both kids and boosters; if we are not careful the position last spring will reverse, and even PB Tories will have to stop going on about our vaccination triumph…
It’s too late, isn’t it? We’re behind Western Europe now.
I say this provocatively in the hopes someone will correct me.
tl;dr
UK has a big waning immunity problem — bigger than Western Europe because of starting vax earlier — which is much more likely than masks to explain UK’s ongoing higher case & death rates https://t.co/8ofsYZjYR2
Potentially we're heading for fairly deep doohdooh and the "it's over" attitude isn't helping.
1000 deaths a week is 10% of all deaths, roughly. I'm not sure we should be as chilled about this as we are; it feels like the borderline between "sad but hey-ho" and "f@#* this is bad".
Why should we not be chilled about ~1000 deaths a week? Close to ten times that many die of natural causes anyway every single week even pre-Covid and we never freaked out about that.
People will be dying until the end of humanity of one thing or another and as this is now endemic, we're never going to see zero Covid deaths again potentially.
The vaccines have done the job in giving us enough herd immunity to prevent exponential growth kicking off and overwhelming the NHS again, but there'll still be cases especially amongst antivaxxers and still be breakthrough illnesses that could kill off some elderly vulnerable people.
That can't and shouldn't be stopped.
I have a lot of sympathy with that view.
But what is infuriating is that the UK could have started on teenagers three months ago, and could have started really pushing boosters at the start of last month. If they had done both those things, then we wouldn't have started to have the hospitals filling.
And right now, the hospitals aren't too full. And it's OK. And we don't need to consider new measures. (And half term is just a week away.)
But the hospitalisation situation doesn't have to get that much worse before we do need to start worrying.
Half term is fewer than 48 hours away here, and quite a few other places.
SARS still has lingering immunity 20 years on. I suspect Covid will be similar. We will still catch Covid, but probably as a mild to moderate illness for most. Some older, weakened immune system patients will still succumb.
I thought coronavirus was going to become the dominant flu strain for the next couple of decades supplanting existing viruses until the next "surprise" comes along.
No, covid is a different type of virus to flu. The only reason flu disappeared was because the suppression measures work against it too, but ordinarily there's no reason they can't circulate at the same time.
Corbyn really did bequeath Starmer a toxic legacy.
The problem is that Starmer isn't up to the job either.
Nonsense. I am not a Labour supporter, but Starmer has a great deal more credibility than the Clown that currently occupies No10. It is a long time before the next election. The big problem that Starmer has is not his own ability or credibility, it is that there is still a large part of the Labour Party that is even more ludicrous than many of those of the current government benches. History will judge how he does the long haul.
He reminds me a lot of Cameron: Massively underestimated by those in his own party that would rather have someone else, and derided by his opponents because they are simply too tribal or plain stupid to realise that he might just make it.
I agree with some of that: but Cameron always had a vision - even if you disagreed with it. Starmer seems unable to project any vision he may have without writing a WORN (*) magnum opus. Events haven't helped him, as the country and media are concentrating on bigger events.
Blair was a salesman. Cameron was also a salesman, to a lesser extent. Starmer doesn't appear to be one - and he needs to sell his vision for the country, to both the country and his own party.
(*) Write Once, Read Never. A common form of computer documentation.
"Blair was a salesman. Cameron was also a salesman, to a lesser extent. Starmer doesn't appear to be one - and he needs to sell his vision for the country, to both the country and his own party." - pretty much the whole reason I think Sir Keir won't be PM - plus the fact he is up against a very charismatic salesman
In a way, they appear polar opposites. Starmer may have a vision (I've no idea given he seems incapable of saying it); Boris doesn't have a vision beyond the end of his nose, but can sell the snot that dribbles out by the barrel-load.
We need a hideous scientific experiment where the two are merged together. Starson or Johnmer.
(I actually quite like Starson. Very sci-fi)
I saw a clip of Blair as LotO at PMQs the other day, and he seemed like he was bossing it vs Major (the famous one "I lead my party, he follows his", seems so horribly smug watching it now), and to an extent Cameron did with Brown, from what I can recall.
Miliband and Sir Keir always seem like they are earnestly whining about it being so unfair to me; maybe it's just the lack of gravitas in their voices. They seem like kids complaining about their parents, in comparison to the last couple of LotOs who became PM
No, he doesn't come over as whining to his parents about it being so unfair. The "wooden" critique is fair enough but you're just indulging yourself with this. Surprised you haven't as yet found fault with his eyebrows btw. Or have I missed that?
Comes over to me as whining to his parents about it being so unfair. He has a whiny voice, like Ed Miliband has, and coupled with his whole schtik being how nasty the govt and Boris are, it seems a bit "poor me"
Don't know about his eyebrows - he looks like a Teddy Boy who likes a beer to me, but Boris is no pin up either, so it doesn't really affect things
A deathly dull teddy boy with a whiny voice who likes a beer. It's pouring out now.
No point opposing such naked prejudice with reason, I've learnt this, but just on the voice - it's not whiny, it's a touch flat & nasal, which is completely different.
And what about your man "Boris". How does HE come over to you? Eg when he stands up and says he's going to "get social care done". Does this sort of thing come across as dynamic and determined, or like he has no clue what he's talking about and operates on pure bullshit?
Ooh, prejudice!!!
I used to absolute despise Boris, based almost solely on a combination of class hatred and inability to see how anyone could fall for his bluster - I wouldn't say he was my man now, I voted for him with a heavy heart and a lot of sadness at finally going over to the dark side. But he was the only one offering to honour the referendum result. As I have got older I can appreciate that a bit of charisma and optimism goes a long way, and dreary righteousness is unappealing
Ok, you're being your best self with that answer, so I'll take it without disbelief or rancour. At least for now.
The coronavirus numbers this evening aren't inspiring - yet we can't go back. For too many people and you see it often on here, the very concept of a return to restrictions is anathema.
The prevailing ethos now is we "live with" the virus which I suppose we could have done in March 2020. We have nearly 80% of those aged 12 and above doubly vaccinated. In Newham, I estimate 55,000 people over 12 are not yet doubly vaccinated so there's still plenty of fuel for the virus.
I confess I'm starting to get concerned about the pace of the booster rollout. @MaxPB was waxing lyrical about getting 2.5 million vaccinated per week - I see little sign of that currently. Mrs Stodge and I are approaching five months since our second vaccination and I'm getting concerned the immunity the second vaccination provided will be wearing off in a few weeks.
Unless we get the booster programme moving, we'll be back in a bad position with weakly protected or unprotected people mixing indoors as we move into late autumn and winter.
Much of Europe is moving faster on both kids and boosters; if we are not careful the position last spring will reverse, and even PB Tories will have to stop going on about our vaccination triumph…
It’s too late, isn’t it? We’re behind Western Europe now.
I say this provocatively in the hopes someone will correct me.
tl;dr
UK has a big waning immunity problem — bigger than Western Europe because of starting vax earlier — which is much more likely than masks to explain UK’s ongoing higher case & death rates https://t.co/8ofsYZjYR2
Potentially we're heading for fairly deep doohdooh and the "it's over" attitude isn't helping.
1000 deaths a week is 10% of all deaths, roughly. I'm not sure we should be as chilled about this as we are; it feels like the borderline between "sad but hey-ho" and "f@#* this is bad".
Why should we not be chilled about ~1000 deaths a week? Close to ten times that many die of natural causes anyway every single week even pre-Covid and we never freaked out about that.
People will be dying until the end of humanity of one thing or another and as this is now endemic, we're never going to see zero Covid deaths again potentially.
The vaccines have done the job in giving us enough herd immunity to prevent exponential growth kicking off and overwhelming the NHS again, but there'll still be cases especially amongst antivaxxers and still be breakthrough illnesses that could kill off some elderly vulnerable people.
That can't and shouldn't be stopped.
I have a lot of sympathy with that view.
But what is infuriating is that the UK could have started on teenagers three months ago, and could have started really pushing boosters at the start of last month. If they had done both those things, then we wouldn't have started to have the hospitals filling.
And right now, the hospitals aren't too full. And it's OK. And we don't need to consider new measures. (And half term is just a week away.)
But the hospitalisation situation doesn't have to get that much worse before we do need to start worrying.
Yes absolutely the JCVI really screwed up and its good that Javid eventually said enough was enough and overruled them. We need sometimes to have politicians decide and not "experts" with their own transparent political agendas and that was a good call - and one Hancock should have made months sooner.
The hospitals are pretty full. I've had surgery cancelled twice already due to lack of bed availability due to Covid.
The coronavirus numbers this evening aren't inspiring - yet we can't go back. For too many people and you see it often on here, the very concept of a return to restrictions is anathema.
The prevailing ethos now is we "live with" the virus which I suppose we could have done in March 2020. We have nearly 80% of those aged 12 and above doubly vaccinated. In Newham, I estimate 55,000 people over 12 are not yet doubly vaccinated so there's still plenty of fuel for the virus.
I confess I'm starting to get concerned about the pace of the booster rollout. @MaxPB was waxing lyrical about getting 2.5 million vaccinated per week - I see little sign of that currently. Mrs Stodge and I are approaching five months since our second vaccination and I'm getting concerned the immunity the second vaccination provided will be wearing off in a few weeks.
Unless we get the booster programme moving, we'll be back in a bad position with weakly protected or unprotected people mixing indoors as we move into late autumn and winter.
Much of Europe is moving faster on both kids and boosters; if we are not careful the position last spring will reverse, and even PB Tories will have to stop going on about our vaccination triumph…
It’s too late, isn’t it? We’re behind Western Europe now.
I say this provocatively in the hopes someone will correct me.
tl;dr
UK has a big waning immunity problem — bigger than Western Europe because of starting vax earlier — which is much more likely than masks to explain UK’s ongoing higher case & death rates https://t.co/8ofsYZjYR2
Potentially we're heading for fairly deep doohdooh and the "it's over" attitude isn't helping.
1000 deaths a week is 10% of all deaths, roughly. I'm not sure we should be as chilled about this as we are; it feels like the borderline between "sad but hey-ho" and "f@#* this is bad".
Why should we not be chilled about ~1000 deaths a week? Close to ten times that many die of natural causes anyway every single week even pre-Covid and we never freaked out about that.
People will be dying until the end of humanity of one thing or another and as this is now endemic, we're never going to see zero Covid deaths again potentially.
The vaccines have done the job in giving us enough herd immunity to prevent exponential growth kicking off and overwhelming the NHS again, but there'll still be cases especially amongst antivaxxers and still be breakthrough illnesses that could kill off some elderly vulnerable people.
That can't and shouldn't be stopped.
I have a lot of sympathy with that view.
But what is infuriating is that the UK could have started on teenagers three months ago, and could have started really pushing boosters at the start of last month. If they had done both those things, then we wouldn't have started to have the hospitals filling.
And right now, the hospitals aren't too full. And it's OK. And we don't need to consider new measures. (And half term is just a week away.)
But the hospitalisation situation doesn't have to get that much worse before we do need to start worrying.
Half term is fewer than 48 hours away here, and quite a few other places.
< Yes absolutely the JCVI really screwed up and its good that Javid eventually said enough was enough and overruled them. We need sometimes to have politicians decide and not "experts" with their own transparent political agendas and that was a good call - and one Hancock should have made months sooner.
I did think the JCVI called it well on the gap between vaccinations at New Year - Pfizer recommended three weeks but the JCVI said 12 would be fine based on their research.
It's been the vaccinations which have got us through 2021 - to be fair, the restrictions in the spring of 2020 were successful in reducing deaths and case numbers at the time.
Political decisions around re-opening in the autumn and early winter last year were I think questionable and we can but hope the independent public enquiry promised by the Prime Minister gets to the bottom of who knew what and when and the extent to which some politicians followed the scientific guidance and some didn't.
Re the unvaccinated cohorts eg in Newham, many if not most will have had Covid by now, and I believe this is the unspoken government plan, and why we are not looking at bringing restrictions in again.
I'm sure that's true and in case numbers Newham is well behind the national average and has been for some time. My only question is just as one can get flu every year if one isn't vaccinated, I presume it's possible at some point even if one has had coronavirus to be vulnerable to re-infection.
In other words, protection derived from infection must wear off as protection derived from vaccination.
My understanding is it's the emergence of new strains (or rather more genetic drift of existing strains) that is responsible for reinfection with 'flu. This is why it's a new vaccine every year, based on which strain is forecast to circulate the widest. Sometimes the forecast is wrong.
That said (and I may have said elsewhere), there has never been an infectious disease so well monitored as COVID-19. We have been testing so many people, so many who have acquired immunity and so often that mild re-infection might be a lot more common than we have supposed in the past. It's just no one noticed, to the point that in immunology textbooks say that, upon acquisition of immunity, following subsequent exposure, you won't even know you're sick. That's probably mostly true, except now you can do LFT and get PCR tests that will let you know! Very exciting times ahead in the field of immunology.
Corbyn really did bequeath Starmer a toxic legacy.
The problem is that Starmer isn't up to the job either.
Nonsense. I am not a Labour supporter, but Starmer has a great deal more credibility than the Clown that currently occupies No10. It is a long time before the next election. The big problem that Starmer has is not his own ability or credibility, it is that there is still a large part of the Labour Party that is even more ludicrous than many of those of the current government benches. History will judge how he does the long haul.
He reminds me a lot of Cameron: Massively underestimated by those in his own party that would rather have someone else, and derided by his opponents because they are simply too tribal or plain stupid to realise that he might just make it.
You've made this fallacious comparison more than a few times.
Cameron wasn't underestimated. He led in the polls consistently for all but 3 months of his leadership from when he became Leader of the Opposition, to when he became Prime Minister. Only for a small 3 month window was he not in the lead. Chart
Starmer has never achieved crossover to lead in the polls for the rolling average. Not once. Chart
Starmer isn't remotely in the same league as Cameron.
Yes, as soon as the public saw Cameron vs Brown instead of Cameron vs Blair, he never looked back. I think Brown led Cameron at first, during recess, but once Parliament started again, if I have got my dates right, Cameron took the lead forever
Actually Cameron consistently led versus Blair too. He took the lead immediately as soon as he became LOTO.
Cameron led in the polls the entire time he was Leader of the Opposition, apart from a very brief interregnum while Brown became PM.
A year and a half after Cameron was elected leader, ie the equivalent stage Starmer is at now, in June 2007 Mori had Labour ahead 39% to 36% for the Tories and Yougov had the Tories ahead on 37% to 35% for Labour.
Nice attempt to cherrypick data but you've got your dates wrong. Cameron became LOTO at the start of December 2005 so a year and a half after was May 2007 not June 2007. In May 2007 Cameron's Conservatives were beating Blair's Labour in every single poll.
In fact at this stage of his leadership not only did he lead in every single poll, he had led his party into the lead in every single poll not just in May but every single poll for the entire year to date. Indeed his party had led in the polls in almost every single poll in the past twelve months by this stage.
It was only when Brown became PM in June that things temporarily changed.
No, 6 months added onto December 2005 is June 2007.
Brown did take the lead from June yes but even in May 2007 the last 2 polls only gave the Tories a 5% lead and a 4% lead.
Once Brown took over on June 27th Labour led every single poll bar one which gave the Tories a 1% lead until after Osborne's IHT cut proposal at the Tory conference in the first week of October
You're right I made a mistake on my months, oops. So correction, at this stage of June 2007 the Tories were in the leed with every single pollster except IPSOS MORI. So that's Populous, YouGov, ICM and Communicate (now ComRes) all showing them in the lead.
Also by this stage of June 2007 the Tories were in the lead overall in the rolling averages and had been without interruption for well over a year.
By this stage of Starmer's leadership, Starmer's Labour isn't in the lead with any pollsters and has never been in the lead in the rolling averages.
There's absolutely no comparison between Starmer and Cameron, and the brief interregnum when Brown had a fleeting lead was the exception not the rule.
Starmer is still polling about 35-37% in most polls, roughly where Cameron was polling at this stage.
Both therefore had a chance of a hung parliament but unlikely to get a majority given the strength of the Tories still now and the strength of the LDs still pre 2020
LOL really clutching at straws to compare them now.
Starmer's party are polling ~35 with their opposing party ~40. Cameron's party was polling ~37 with their opposing party ~32.
That's not the same thing at all.
It is exactly the same thing.
The LDs were polling 15-21% in mid 2007 ie significantly higher than they are now. So it was not enough for Cameron to have a clear lead over Labour to get a majority as 2010 proved, he also needed to win large numbers of LD seats, especially in the South West too, something he only achieved in 2015.
Starmer's party may be less likely to win most seats in a hung parliament than Cameron but if it deprives the Tories of a majority it has more potential allies than Cameron too, not just the LDs but the SNP, the Greens, PC, the SDLP and Alliance. Cameron only had the LDs and DUP, Boris will not have the LDs and and maybe not even the DUP either unless he removes the Irish Sea border.
The latest Redfield and Wilton also puts Labour on 37% ie exactly the same voteshare as Cameron was polling in 2007
Its not exactly the same thing. The third party vote has crumbled in recent years to the benefit of both main parties. So 37% today is much worse than 37% when Cameron got it.
What matters under FPTP is the relative lead of your party against the opposition. If like Cameron you've got 37 versus 32 then you're getting 54% of the primary parties vote share.
If like Starmer you're getting 35 versus 40 then you're getting 47% of the primary parties vote share.
One is election winning, the other election losing.
Wrong.
What matters under FPTP is the relative lead of your party against not only the second placed party but also the third party. Hence a 7% lead over Labour did not get Cameron a majority in 2010 as the LDs were on 23% while a 7% lead over Labour did get Cameron a majority in 2015 as the LDs collapsed to just 8% and UKIP failed to win more than 1 seat.
If Starmer gets a hung parliament and the Tories and DUP do not have a majority then Starmer will be PM as the SNP and LDs will back him even if Boris' Tories still win most seats
Murdo Fraser @murdo_fraser · 2m Interesting to see on the BBC News - and confirmed to me by those attending - that fans arriving at Celtic Park today faced no rigorous vaccine passport checks, simply a glance at a phone screen or a paper print-out. So what’s the point?
None and I believe Sturgeon has banned the idea of the word Mother
The most beautiful word there is
I do not speak about woke normally but this is world class level nonsense
Do you have a source for that, or is it all a bit Winterval?
Motherf....
Oooops, not allowed.
LOL that's just made my imagine trying to do a non-binary woke version of South Park's Terrence and Phillip NSFW song from the movie. Who could have guessed that when that song came out the most offensive term in that could end up becoming the word Uncle?
The coronavirus numbers this evening aren't inspiring - yet we can't go back. For too many people and you see it often on here, the very concept of a return to restrictions is anathema.
The prevailing ethos now is we "live with" the virus which I suppose we could have done in March 2020. We have nearly 80% of those aged 12 and above doubly vaccinated. In Newham, I estimate 55,000 people over 12 are not yet doubly vaccinated so there's still plenty of fuel for the virus.
I confess I'm starting to get concerned about the pace of the booster rollout. @MaxPB was waxing lyrical about getting 2.5 million vaccinated per week - I see little sign of that currently. Mrs Stodge and I are approaching five months since our second vaccination and I'm getting concerned the immunity the second vaccination provided will be wearing off in a few weeks.
Unless we get the booster programme moving, we'll be back in a bad position with weakly protected or unprotected people mixing indoors as we move into late autumn and winter.
Much of Europe is moving faster on both kids and boosters; if we are not careful the position last spring will reverse, and even PB Tories will have to stop going on about our vaccination triumph…
It’s too late, isn’t it? We’re behind Western Europe now.
I say this provocatively in the hopes someone will correct me.
tl;dr
UK has a big waning immunity problem — bigger than Western Europe because of starting vax earlier — which is much more likely than masks to explain UK’s ongoing higher case & death rates https://t.co/8ofsYZjYR2
Potentially we're heading for fairly deep doohdooh and the "it's over" attitude isn't helping.
1000 deaths a week is 10% of all deaths, roughly. I'm not sure we should be as chilled about this as we are; it feels like the borderline between "sad but hey-ho" and "f@#* this is bad".
Why should we not be chilled about ~1000 deaths a week? Close to ten times that many die of natural causes anyway every single week even pre-Covid and we never freaked out about that.
People will be dying until the end of humanity of one thing or another and as this is now endemic, we're never going to see zero Covid deaths again potentially.
The vaccines have done the job in giving us enough herd immunity to prevent exponential growth kicking off and overwhelming the NHS again, but there'll still be cases especially amongst antivaxxers and still be breakthrough illnesses that could kill off some elderly vulnerable people.
That can't and shouldn't be stopped.
I have a lot of sympathy with that view.
But what is infuriating is that the UK could have started on teenagers three months ago, and could have started really pushing boosters at the start of last month. If they had done both those things, then we wouldn't have started to have the hospitals filling.
And right now, the hospitals aren't too full. And it's OK. And we don't need to consider new measures. (And half term is just a week away.)
But the hospitalisation situation doesn't have to get that much worse before we do need to start worrying.
Half term is fewer than 48 hours away here, and quite a few other places.
The Nandy-doubters haven’t been following her closely enough.
She’s Worcester woman’s younger neice, with a good education. She’s passionate, but doesn’t frighten the horses.
A belligerent person like Jess Philips or Angela Rayner might “bring the fight to the Tories” but will turn off middle Britain.
It's interesting how just about every Lab member on here (inc me) voted for Nandy as leader.
I’m not a labour member. Indeed, I have never voted for them. They are too statist for me.
But, yeh.
What's the vote you felt best about in the past GW?
For me, and admittedly I'm cheating is that I wanted to vote 'Coalition' in 2015. Clearly I couldn't.
I've always felt very happy and comfortable voting Tory otherwise. (And I actually like the voting process - it feels good to march down to your local voting station and place a tick on a piece of paper,)
Forgot to add, I also enjoy voting very much. It’s a civic ritual. The only one left.
That’s why I’m kind of against postal voting.
We had the local elections in Estonia this week. A new record online vote, over 40% of total votes cast. The turnout was about 55%, which is quite high compared to the Uk average for locals which is generally below 40%.
The coronavirus numbers this evening aren't inspiring - yet we can't go back. For too many people and you see it often on here, the very concept of a return to restrictions is anathema.
The prevailing ethos now is we "live with" the virus which I suppose we could have done in March 2020. We have nearly 80% of those aged 12 and above doubly vaccinated. In Newham, I estimate 55,000 people over 12 are not yet doubly vaccinated so there's still plenty of fuel for the virus.
I confess I'm starting to get concerned about the pace of the booster rollout. @MaxPB was waxing lyrical about getting 2.5 million vaccinated per week - I see little sign of that currently. Mrs Stodge and I are approaching five months since our second vaccination and I'm getting concerned the immunity the second vaccination provided will be wearing off in a few weeks.
Unless we get the booster programme moving, we'll be back in a bad position with weakly protected or unprotected people mixing indoors as we move into late autumn and winter.
Much of Europe is moving faster on both kids and boosters; if we are not careful the position last spring will reverse, and even PB Tories will have to stop going on about our vaccination triumph…
It’s too late, isn’t it? We’re behind Western Europe now.
I say this provocatively in the hopes someone will correct me.
tl;dr
UK has a big waning immunity problem — bigger than Western Europe because of starting vax earlier — which is much more likely than masks to explain UK’s ongoing higher case & death rates https://t.co/8ofsYZjYR2
Potentially we're heading for fairly deep doohdooh and the "it's over" attitude isn't helping.
1000 deaths a week is 10% of all deaths, roughly. I'm not sure we should be as chilled about this as we are; it feels like the borderline between "sad but hey-ho" and "f@#* this is bad".
Why should we not be chilled about ~1000 deaths a week? Close to ten times that many die of natural causes anyway every single week even pre-Covid and we never freaked out about that.
People will be dying until the end of humanity of one thing or another and as this is now endemic, we're never going to see zero Covid deaths again potentially.
The vaccines have done the job in giving us enough herd immunity to prevent exponential growth kicking off and overwhelming the NHS again, but there'll still be cases especially amongst antivaxxers and still be breakthrough illnesses that could kill off some elderly vulnerable people.
That can't and shouldn't be stopped.
I have a lot of sympathy with that view.
But what is infuriating is that the UK could have started on teenagers three months ago, and could have started really pushing boosters at the start of last month. If they had done both those things, then we wouldn't have started to have the hospitals filling.
And right now, the hospitals aren't too full. And it's OK. And we don't need to consider new measures. (And half term is just a week away.)
But the hospitalisation situation doesn't have to get that much worse before we do need to start worrying.
Half term is fewer than 48 hours away here, and quite a few other places.
Weird - Friday off for some reason?
Yep. Why? Dunno.
I want to say lazy teachers but @Ydoethur will pun my ass if I do...
The coronavirus numbers this evening aren't inspiring - yet we can't go back. For too many people and you see it often on here, the very concept of a return to restrictions is anathema.
The prevailing ethos now is we "live with" the virus which I suppose we could have done in March 2020. We have nearly 80% of those aged 12 and above doubly vaccinated. In Newham, I estimate 55,000 people over 12 are not yet doubly vaccinated so there's still plenty of fuel for the virus.
I confess I'm starting to get concerned about the pace of the booster rollout. @MaxPB was waxing lyrical about getting 2.5 million vaccinated per week - I see little sign of that currently. Mrs Stodge and I are approaching five months since our second vaccination and I'm getting concerned the immunity the second vaccination provided will be wearing off in a few weeks.
Unless we get the booster programme moving, we'll be back in a bad position with weakly protected or unprotected people mixing indoors as we move into late autumn and winter.
Much of Europe is moving faster on both kids and boosters; if we are not careful the position last spring will reverse, and even PB Tories will have to stop going on about our vaccination triumph…
It’s too late, isn’t it? We’re behind Western Europe now.
I say this provocatively in the hopes someone will correct me.
tl;dr
UK has a big waning immunity problem — bigger than Western Europe because of starting vax earlier — which is much more likely than masks to explain UK’s ongoing higher case & death rates https://t.co/8ofsYZjYR2
Potentially we're heading for fairly deep doohdooh and the "it's over" attitude isn't helping.
1000 deaths a week is 10% of all deaths, roughly. I'm not sure we should be as chilled about this as we are; it feels like the borderline between "sad but hey-ho" and "f@#* this is bad".
Why should we not be chilled about ~1000 deaths a week? Close to ten times that many die of natural causes anyway every single week even pre-Covid and we never freaked out about that.
People will be dying until the end of humanity of one thing or another and as this is now endemic, we're never going to see zero Covid deaths again potentially.
The vaccines have done the job in giving us enough herd immunity to prevent exponential growth kicking off and overwhelming the NHS again, but there'll still be cases especially amongst antivaxxers and still be breakthrough illnesses that could kill off some elderly vulnerable people.
That can't and shouldn't be stopped.
I have a lot of sympathy with that view.
But what is infuriating is that the UK could have started on teenagers three months ago, and could have started really pushing boosters at the start of last month. If they had done both those things, then we wouldn't have started to have the hospitals filling.
And right now, the hospitals aren't too full. And it's OK. And we don't need to consider new measures. (And half term is just a week away.)
But the hospitalisation situation doesn't have to get that much worse before we do need to start worrying.
Half term is fewer than 48 hours away here, and quite a few other places.
Weird - Friday off for some reason?
Yep. Why? Dunno.
I want to say lazy teachers but @Ydoethur will pun my ass if I do...
The sophistication of the new energy paradigm LOL - until they get an automated smart grid far enough down the road.
Tonight people on Octopus Agile Tariff will be paid 2.21p per unit to use electricity. So I forecast it will be windy.
Plunge pricing alert for Octopus Agile electricity. First time in weeks that the price has dipped below the 35p/unit cap ** by more than a couple of pence.
Tomorrow morning they’ll pay 2.21/unit (just for 30 mins) but between midnight and 06:00 the average unit price is 5.602p.
Sunamp *, washing machine and dishwasher will be in the starting blocks at midnight.
* A Sunamp is a phase change heat battery, that stores energy far more effectively than an insulated hot water tank. But is still rather expensive. ** The 35p per unit relates to the price around the peak period in the evening. You need to be able to time shift loads to avoid it.
That's really rather clever.
Its an interesting start at what I guess we can call "demand shaping". Same principles as night tariff.
To save much you have to work at it, though.
Here is the Buildhub Boffins Corner thread with some commentary, and a script which will pull the historic tariff data from the Octopus API.
The Nandy-doubters haven’t been following her closely enough.
She’s Worcester woman’s younger neice, with a good education. She’s passionate, but doesn’t frighten the horses.
A belligerent person like Jess Philips or Angela Rayner might “bring the fight to the Tories” but will turn off middle Britain.
It's interesting how just about every Lab member on here (inc me) voted for Nandy as leader.
I’m not a labour member. Indeed, I have never voted for them. They are too statist for me.
But, yeh.
I know you aren't a member but I didn't know you'd never voted Labour. Gosh. Although actually, doesn't matter, what we need for next time is the most efficient anti-Con vote in each seat. That will, I hope, eject BoJo.
What you want is people who used not to vote labour, voting labour. Rather than people who used to vote labour, fucking off and joining the Tories. That may read a touch patronising, but if you feel patronised by it you are intellectually in the top 1% of Labour voters.
Most definitely. But if the Cons still lead on vote share, which sadly I think they will, it's probably going to require a fair amount of anti-Con voting (rather than pro Lab or LD voting) to stop them getting back in.
The coronavirus numbers this evening aren't inspiring - yet we can't go back. For too many people and you see it often on here, the very concept of a return to restrictions is anathema.
The prevailing ethos now is we "live with" the virus which I suppose we could have done in March 2020. We have nearly 80% of those aged 12 and above doubly vaccinated. In Newham, I estimate 55,000 people over 12 are not yet doubly vaccinated so there's still plenty of fuel for the virus.
I confess I'm starting to get concerned about the pace of the booster rollout. @MaxPB was waxing lyrical about getting 2.5 million vaccinated per week - I see little sign of that currently. Mrs Stodge and I are approaching five months since our second vaccination and I'm getting concerned the immunity the second vaccination provided will be wearing off in a few weeks.
Unless we get the booster programme moving, we'll be back in a bad position with weakly protected or unprotected people mixing indoors as we move into late autumn and winter.
Much of Europe is moving faster on both kids and boosters; if we are not careful the position last spring will reverse, and even PB Tories will have to stop going on about our vaccination triumph…
It’s too late, isn’t it? We’re behind Western Europe now.
I say this provocatively in the hopes someone will correct me.
tl;dr
UK has a big waning immunity problem — bigger than Western Europe because of starting vax earlier — which is much more likely than masks to explain UK’s ongoing higher case & death rates https://t.co/8ofsYZjYR2
Potentially we're heading for fairly deep doohdooh and the "it's over" attitude isn't helping.
1000 deaths a week is 10% of all deaths, roughly. I'm not sure we should be as chilled about this as we are; it feels like the borderline between "sad but hey-ho" and "f@#* this is bad".
Why should we not be chilled about ~1000 deaths a week? Close to ten times that many die of natural causes anyway every single week even pre-Covid and we never freaked out about that.
People will be dying until the end of humanity of one thing or another and as this is now endemic, we're never going to see zero Covid deaths again potentially.
The vaccines have done the job in giving us enough herd immunity to prevent exponential growth kicking off and overwhelming the NHS again, but there'll still be cases especially amongst antivaxxers and still be breakthrough illnesses that could kill off some elderly vulnerable people.
That can't and shouldn't be stopped.
I have a lot of sympathy with that view.
But what is infuriating is that the UK could have started on teenagers three months ago, and could have started really pushing boosters at the start of last month. If they had done both those things, then we wouldn't have started to have the hospitals filling.
And right now, the hospitals aren't too full. And it's OK. And we don't need to consider new measures. (And half term is just a week away.)
But the hospitalisation situation doesn't have to get that much worse before we do need to start worrying.
Half term is fewer than 48 hours away here, and quite a few other places.
Less than. You are talking units of measurement, not discrete monads.
I keep having my Laptop fan getting very loud for the past week now and Chrome comes grinding to a halt, after doing a few diagnostics it seems that Chrome is going up to using almost 100% of CPU for no apparent reason. And it only seems to be happening when I have vf.politicalbetting.com open. Its not happening all the time, but it is happening quite frequently.
Closing Chrome drops the CPU use back down to next-to-nothing, and it seems closing just the PB tabs within Chrome is doing the same thing too.
There seems to be something on vf.politicalbetting.com or on my Laptop linking with that, that's driving that to happen.
Has anyone else had anything like this happen? I'm not sure if its happening with just Chrome or Firefox too.
Bloody hell I managed to get a Pixel 6 Pro 256GB! No idea how, it just randomly went through, a few of my mates are annoyed because it's fully out of stock now.
Corbyn really did bequeath Starmer a toxic legacy.
The problem is that Starmer isn't up to the job either.
Nonsense. I am not a Labour supporter, but Starmer has a great deal more credibility than the Clown that currently occupies No10. It is a long time before the next election. The big problem that Starmer has is not his own ability or credibility, it is that there is still a large part of the Labour Party that is even more ludicrous than many of those of the current government benches. History will judge how he does the long haul.
He reminds me a lot of Cameron: Massively underestimated by those in his own party that would rather have someone else, and derided by his opponents because they are simply too tribal or plain stupid to realise that he might just make it.
You've made this fallacious comparison more than a few times.
Cameron wasn't underestimated. He led in the polls consistently for all but 3 months of his leadership from when he became Leader of the Opposition, to when he became Prime Minister. Only for a small 3 month window was he not in the lead. Chart
Starmer has never achieved crossover to lead in the polls for the rolling average. Not once. Chart
Starmer isn't remotely in the same league as Cameron.
Yes, as soon as the public saw Cameron vs Brown instead of Cameron vs Blair, he never looked back. I think Brown led Cameron at first, during recess, but once Parliament started again, if I have got my dates right, Cameron took the lead forever
Actually Cameron consistently led versus Blair too. He took the lead immediately as soon as he became LOTO.
Cameron led in the polls the entire time he was Leader of the Opposition, apart from a very brief interregnum while Brown became PM.
A year and a half after Cameron was elected leader, ie the equivalent stage Starmer is at now, in June 2007 Mori had Labour ahead 39% to 36% for the Tories and Yougov had the Tories ahead on 37% to 35% for Labour.
Nice attempt to cherrypick data but you've got your dates wrong. Cameron became LOTO at the start of December 2005 so a year and a half after was May 2007 not June 2007. In May 2007 Cameron's Conservatives were beating Blair's Labour in every single poll.
In fact at this stage of his leadership not only did he lead in every single poll, he had led his party into the lead in every single poll not just in May but every single poll for the entire year to date. Indeed his party had led in the polls in almost every single poll in the past twelve months by this stage.
It was only when Brown became PM in June that things temporarily changed.
No, 6 months added onto December 2005 is June 2007.
Brown did take the lead from June yes but even in May 2007 the last 2 polls only gave the Tories a 5% lead and a 4% lead.
Once Brown took over on June 27th Labour led every single poll bar one which gave the Tories a 1% lead until after Osborne's IHT cut proposal at the Tory conference in the first week of October
You're right I made a mistake on my months, oops. So correction, at this stage of June 2007 the Tories were in the leed with every single pollster except IPSOS MORI. So that's Populous, YouGov, ICM and Communicate (now ComRes) all showing them in the lead.
Also by this stage of June 2007 the Tories were in the lead overall in the rolling averages and had been without interruption for well over a year.
By this stage of Starmer's leadership, Starmer's Labour isn't in the lead with any pollsters and has never been in the lead in the rolling averages.
There's absolutely no comparison between Starmer and Cameron, and the brief interregnum when Brown had a fleeting lead was the exception not the rule.
Starmer is still polling about 35-37% in most polls, roughly where Cameron was polling at this stage.
Both therefore had a chance of a hung parliament but unlikely to get a majority given the strength of the Tories still now and the strength of the LDs still pre 2020
LOL really clutching at straws to compare them now.
Starmer's party are polling ~35 with their opposing party ~40. Cameron's party was polling ~37 with their opposing party ~32.
That's not the same thing at all.
It is exactly the same thing.
The LDs were polling 15-21% in mid 2007 ie significantly higher than they are now. So it was not enough for Cameron to have a clear lead over Labour to get a majority as 2010 proved, he also needed to win large numbers of LD seats, especially in the South West too, something he only achieved in 2015.
Starmer's party may be less likely to win most seats in a hung parliament than Cameron but if it deprives the Tories of a majority it has more potential allies than Cameron too, not just the LDs but the SNP, the Greens, PC, the SDLP and Alliance. Cameron only had the LDs and DUP, Boris will not have the LDs and and maybe not even the DUP either unless he removes the Irish Sea border.
The latest Redfield and Wilton also puts Labour on 37% ie exactly the same voteshare as Cameron was polling in 2007
Its not exactly the same thing. The third party vote has crumbled in recent years to the benefit of both main parties. So 37% today is much worse than 37% when Cameron got it.
What matters under FPTP is the relative lead of your party against the opposition. If like Cameron you've got 37 versus 32 then you're getting 54% of the primary parties vote share.
If like Starmer you're getting 35 versus 40 then you're getting 47% of the primary parties vote share.
One is election winning, the other election losing.
Smacks of the Gross Positives vs Net Satisfaction debate
Of course Corbyn got 40%, but that was deemed to be nothing special as the Tories got 44
If it takes two minutes to determine whether a goal is on or offside, then it isn't a clear and obvious error.
Really needs to be automated so it is instantly determined with a margin of error on both sides for sticking with the on-field call like Umpire's Call in Cricket.
Bloody hell I managed to get a Pixel 6 Pro 256GB! No idea how, it just randomly went through, a few of my mates are annoyed because it's fully out of stock now.
Make sure you remember to claim the free Bose headphones.
Corbyn really did bequeath Starmer a toxic legacy.
The problem is that Starmer isn't up to the job either.
Nonsense. I am not a Labour supporter, but Starmer has a great deal more credibility than the Clown that currently occupies No10. It is a long time before the next election. The big problem that Starmer has is not his own ability or credibility, it is that there is still a large part of the Labour Party that is even more ludicrous than many of those of the current government benches. History will judge how he does the long haul.
He reminds me a lot of Cameron: Massively underestimated by those in his own party that would rather have someone else, and derided by his opponents because they are simply too tribal or plain stupid to realise that he might just make it.
You've made this fallacious comparison more than a few times.
Cameron wasn't underestimated. He led in the polls consistently for all but 3 months of his leadership from when he became Leader of the Opposition, to when he became Prime Minister. Only for a small 3 month window was he not in the lead. Chart
Starmer has never achieved crossover to lead in the polls for the rolling average. Not once. Chart
Starmer isn't remotely in the same league as Cameron.
Yes, as soon as the public saw Cameron vs Brown instead of Cameron vs Blair, he never looked back. I think Brown led Cameron at first, during recess, but once Parliament started again, if I have got my dates right, Cameron took the lead forever
Actually Cameron consistently led versus Blair too. He took the lead immediately as soon as he became LOTO.
Cameron led in the polls the entire time he was Leader of the Opposition, apart from a very brief interregnum while Brown became PM.
A year and a half after Cameron was elected leader, ie the equivalent stage Starmer is at now, in June 2007 Mori had Labour ahead 39% to 36% for the Tories and Yougov had the Tories ahead on 37% to 35% for Labour.
Nice attempt to cherrypick data but you've got your dates wrong. Cameron became LOTO at the start of December 2005 so a year and a half after was May 2007 not June 2007. In May 2007 Cameron's Conservatives were beating Blair's Labour in every single poll.
In fact at this stage of his leadership not only did he lead in every single poll, he had led his party into the lead in every single poll not just in May but every single poll for the entire year to date. Indeed his party had led in the polls in almost every single poll in the past twelve months by this stage.
It was only when Brown became PM in June that things temporarily changed.
No, 6 months added onto December 2005 is June 2007.
Brown did take the lead from June yes but even in May 2007 the last 2 polls only gave the Tories a 5% lead and a 4% lead.
Once Brown took over on June 27th Labour led every single poll bar one which gave the Tories a 1% lead until after Osborne's IHT cut proposal at the Tory conference in the first week of October
You're right I made a mistake on my months, oops. So correction, at this stage of June 2007 the Tories were in the leed with every single pollster except IPSOS MORI. So that's Populous, YouGov, ICM and Communicate (now ComRes) all showing them in the lead.
Also by this stage of June 2007 the Tories were in the lead overall in the rolling averages and had been without interruption for well over a year.
By this stage of Starmer's leadership, Starmer's Labour isn't in the lead with any pollsters and has never been in the lead in the rolling averages.
There's absolutely no comparison between Starmer and Cameron, and the brief interregnum when Brown had a fleeting lead was the exception not the rule.
Starmer is still polling about 35-37% in most polls, roughly where Cameron was polling at this stage.
Both therefore had a chance of a hung parliament but unlikely to get a majority given the strength of the Tories still now and the strength of the LDs still pre 2020
LOL really clutching at straws to compare them now.
Starmer's party are polling ~35 with their opposing party ~40. Cameron's party was polling ~37 with their opposing party ~32.
That's not the same thing at all.
It is exactly the same thing.
The LDs were polling 15-21% in mid 2007 ie significantly higher than they are now. So it was not enough for Cameron to have a clear lead over Labour to get a majority as 2010 proved, he also needed to win large numbers of LD seats, especially in the South West too, something he only achieved in 2015.
Starmer's party may be less likely to win most seats in a hung parliament than Cameron but if it deprives the Tories of a majority it has more potential allies than Cameron too, not just the LDs but the SNP, the Greens, PC, the SDLP and Alliance. Cameron only had the LDs and DUP, Boris will not have the LDs and and maybe not even the DUP either unless he removes the Irish Sea border.
The latest Redfield and Wilton also puts Labour on 37% ie exactly the same voteshare as Cameron was polling in 2007
Its not exactly the same thing. The third party vote has crumbled in recent years to the benefit of both main parties. So 37% today is much worse than 37% when Cameron got it.
What matters under FPTP is the relative lead of your party against the opposition. If like Cameron you've got 37 versus 32 then you're getting 54% of the primary parties vote share.
If like Starmer you're getting 35 versus 40 then you're getting 47% of the primary parties vote share.
One is election winning, the other election losing.
Smacks of the Gross Positives vs Net Satisfaction debate
Of course Corbyn got 40%, but that was deemed to be nothing special as the Tories got 44
Exactly!
Corbyn in 2017 got a much higher vote share than Blair in 2005 and nearly as much as Blair got in 2001.
But that was after the death of the Lib Dems. Its not the same thing.
Anyone who hasn’t realised that the Tory’s game is to put up taxes now in order to bring them down just before the election is not paying attention.
And what they'll do is raise taxes on working people with NI and lower income tax. It will be a net transfer of wealth from working people to retired people.
If it takes two minutes to determine whether a goal is on or offside, then it isn't a clear and obvious error.
Really needs to be automated so it is instantly determined with a margin of error on both sides for sticking with the on-field call like Umpire's Call in Cricket.
My suggestion is a 30 seconds max for VAR to judge, and if they cant tell by then the refs decision stands - as you say it cant be clear and obvious if takes so long
Corbyn really did bequeath Starmer a toxic legacy.
The problem is that Starmer isn't up to the job either.
Nonsense. I am not a Labour supporter, but Starmer has a great deal more credibility than the Clown that currently occupies No10. It is a long time before the next election. The big problem that Starmer has is not his own ability or credibility, it is that there is still a large part of the Labour Party that is even more ludicrous than many of those of the current government benches. History will judge how he does the long haul.
He reminds me a lot of Cameron: Massively underestimated by those in his own party that would rather have someone else, and derided by his opponents because they are simply too tribal or plain stupid to realise that he might just make it.
You've made this fallacious comparison more than a few times.
Cameron wasn't underestimated. He led in the polls consistently for all but 3 months of his leadership from when he became Leader of the Opposition, to when he became Prime Minister. Only for a small 3 month window was he not in the lead. Chart
Starmer has never achieved crossover to lead in the polls for the rolling average. Not once. Chart
Starmer isn't remotely in the same league as Cameron.
Yes, as soon as the public saw Cameron vs Brown instead of Cameron vs Blair, he never looked back. I think Brown led Cameron at first, during recess, but once Parliament started again, if I have got my dates right, Cameron took the lead forever
Actually Cameron consistently led versus Blair too. He took the lead immediately as soon as he became LOTO.
Cameron led in the polls the entire time he was Leader of the Opposition, apart from a very brief interregnum while Brown became PM.
A year and a half after Cameron was elected leader, ie the equivalent stage Starmer is at now, in June 2007 Mori had Labour ahead 39% to 36% for the Tories and Yougov had the Tories ahead on 37% to 35% for Labour.
Nice attempt to cherrypick data but you've got your dates wrong. Cameron became LOTO at the start of December 2005 so a year and a half after was May 2007 not June 2007. In May 2007 Cameron's Conservatives were beating Blair's Labour in every single poll.
In fact at this stage of his leadership not only did he lead in every single poll, he had led his party into the lead in every single poll not just in May but every single poll for the entire year to date. Indeed his party had led in the polls in almost every single poll in the past twelve months by this stage.
It was only when Brown became PM in June that things temporarily changed.
No, 6 months added onto December 2005 is June 2007.
Brown did take the lead from June yes but even in May 2007 the last 2 polls only gave the Tories a 5% lead and a 4% lead.
Once Brown took over on June 27th Labour led every single poll bar one which gave the Tories a 1% lead until after Osborne's IHT cut proposal at the Tory conference in the first week of October
You're right I made a mistake on my months, oops. So correction, at this stage of June 2007 the Tories were in the leed with every single pollster except IPSOS MORI. So that's Populous, YouGov, ICM and Communicate (now ComRes) all showing them in the lead.
Also by this stage of June 2007 the Tories were in the lead overall in the rolling averages and had been without interruption for well over a year.
By this stage of Starmer's leadership, Starmer's Labour isn't in the lead with any pollsters and has never been in the lead in the rolling averages.
There's absolutely no comparison between Starmer and Cameron, and the brief interregnum when Brown had a fleeting lead was the exception not the rule.
Starmer is still polling about 35-37% in most polls, roughly where Cameron was polling at this stage.
Both therefore had a chance of a hung parliament but unlikely to get a majority given the strength of the Tories still now and the strength of the LDs still pre 2020
LOL really clutching at straws to compare them now.
Starmer's party are polling ~35 with their opposing party ~40. Cameron's party was polling ~37 with their opposing party ~32.
That's not the same thing at all.
It is exactly the same thing.
The LDs were polling 15-21% in mid 2007 ie significantly higher than they are now. So it was not enough for Cameron to have a clear lead over Labour to get a majority as 2010 proved, he also needed to win large numbers of LD seats, especially in the South West too, something he only achieved in 2015.
Starmer's party may be less likely to win most seats in a hung parliament than Cameron but if it deprives the Tories of a majority it has more potential allies than Cameron too, not just the LDs but the SNP, the Greens, PC, the SDLP and Alliance. Cameron only had the LDs and DUP, Boris will not have the LDs and and maybe not even the DUP either unless he removes the Irish Sea border.
The latest Redfield and Wilton also puts Labour on 37% ie exactly the same voteshare as Cameron was polling in 2007
Its not exactly the same thing. The third party vote has crumbled in recent years to the benefit of both main parties. So 37% today is much worse than 37% when Cameron got it.
What matters under FPTP is the relative lead of your party against the opposition. If like Cameron you've got 37 versus 32 then you're getting 54% of the primary parties vote share.
If like Starmer you're getting 35 versus 40 then you're getting 47% of the primary parties vote share.
One is election winning, the other election losing.
Smacks of the Gross Positives vs Net Satisfaction debate
Of course Corbyn got 40%, but that was deemed to be nothing special as the Tories got 44
Exactly!
Corbyn in 2017 got a much higher vote share than Blair in 2005 and nearly as much as Blair got in 2001.
But that was after the death of the Lib Dems. Its not the same thing.
Rather more importantly, it was after the Tories had stopped barely clocking 30%.
Doing as well as Blair on gross vote share doesn’t conceal the fact he was four points behind rather than 3 or 9 points ahead.
Corbyn really did bequeath Starmer a toxic legacy.
The problem is that Starmer isn't up to the job either.
Nonsense. I am not a Labour supporter, but Starmer has a great deal more credibility than the Clown that currently occupies No10. It is a long time before the next election. The big problem that Starmer has is not his own ability or credibility, it is that there is still a large part of the Labour Party that is even more ludicrous than many of those of the current government benches. History will judge how he does the long haul.
He reminds me a lot of Cameron: Massively underestimated by those in his own party that would rather have someone else, and derided by his opponents because they are simply too tribal or plain stupid to realise that he might just make it.
You've made this fallacious comparison more than a few times.
Cameron wasn't underestimated. He led in the polls consistently for all but 3 months of his leadership from when he became Leader of the Opposition, to when he became Prime Minister. Only for a small 3 month window was he not in the lead. Chart
Starmer has never achieved crossover to lead in the polls for the rolling average. Not once. Chart
Starmer isn't remotely in the same league as Cameron.
Yes, as soon as the public saw Cameron vs Brown instead of Cameron vs Blair, he never looked back. I think Brown led Cameron at first, during recess, but once Parliament started again, if I have got my dates right, Cameron took the lead forever
Actually Cameron consistently led versus Blair too. He took the lead immediately as soon as he became LOTO.
Cameron led in the polls the entire time he was Leader of the Opposition, apart from a very brief interregnum while Brown became PM.
A year and a half after Cameron was elected leader, ie the equivalent stage Starmer is at now, in June 2007 Mori had Labour ahead 39% to 36% for the Tories and Yougov had the Tories ahead on 37% to 35% for Labour.
Nice attempt to cherrypick data but you've got your dates wrong. Cameron became LOTO at the start of December 2005 so a year and a half after was May 2007 not June 2007. In May 2007 Cameron's Conservatives were beating Blair's Labour in every single poll.
In fact at this stage of his leadership not only did he lead in every single poll, he had led his party into the lead in every single poll not just in May but every single poll for the entire year to date. Indeed his party had led in the polls in almost every single poll in the past twelve months by this stage.
It was only when Brown became PM in June that things temporarily changed.
No, 6 months added onto December 2005 is June 2007.
Brown did take the lead from June yes but even in May 2007 the last 2 polls only gave the Tories a 5% lead and a 4% lead.
Once Brown took over on June 27th Labour led every single poll bar one which gave the Tories a 1% lead until after Osborne's IHT cut proposal at the Tory conference in the first week of October
You're right I made a mistake on my months, oops. So correction, at this stage of June 2007 the Tories were in the leed with every single pollster except IPSOS MORI. So that's Populous, YouGov, ICM and Communicate (now ComRes) all showing them in the lead.
Also by this stage of June 2007 the Tories were in the lead overall in the rolling averages and had been without interruption for well over a year.
By this stage of Starmer's leadership, Starmer's Labour isn't in the lead with any pollsters and has never been in the lead in the rolling averages.
There's absolutely no comparison between Starmer and Cameron, and the brief interregnum when Brown had a fleeting lead was the exception not the rule.
Starmer is still polling about 35-37% in most polls, roughly where Cameron was polling at this stage.
Both therefore had a chance of a hung parliament but unlikely to get a majority given the strength of the Tories still now and the strength of the LDs still pre 2020
LOL really clutching at straws to compare them now.
Starmer's party are polling ~35 with their opposing party ~40. Cameron's party was polling ~37 with their opposing party ~32.
That's not the same thing at all.
It is exactly the same thing.
The LDs were polling 15-21% in mid 2007 ie significantly higher than they are now. So it was not enough for Cameron to have a clear lead over Labour to get a majority as 2010 proved, he also needed to win large numbers of LD seats, especially in the South West too, something he only achieved in 2015.
Starmer's party may be less likely to win most seats in a hung parliament than Cameron but if it deprives the Tories of a majority it has more potential allies than Cameron too, not just the LDs but the SNP, the Greens, PC, the SDLP and Alliance. Cameron only had the LDs and DUP, Boris will not have the LDs and and maybe not even the DUP either unless he removes the Irish Sea border.
The latest Redfield and Wilton also puts Labour on 37% ie exactly the same voteshare as Cameron was polling in 2007
Its not exactly the same thing. The third party vote has crumbled in recent years to the benefit of both main parties. So 37% today is much worse than 37% when Cameron got it.
What matters under FPTP is the relative lead of your party against the opposition. If like Cameron you've got 37 versus 32 then you're getting 54% of the primary parties vote share.
If like Starmer you're getting 35 versus 40 then you're getting 47% of the primary parties vote share.
One is election winning, the other election losing.
Smacks of the Gross Positives vs Net Satisfaction debate
Of course Corbyn got 40%, but that was deemed to be nothing special as the Tories got 44
Corbyn getting above 0% seems very strange to me. Brown was/is worse than Corbyn, but I can see how some misguided people might vote for him.
The sophistication of the new energy paradigm LOL - until they get an automated smart grid far enough down the road.
Tonight people on Octopus Agile Tariff will be paid 2.21p per unit to use electricity. So I forecast it will be windy.
Plunge pricing alert for Octopus Agile electricity. First time in weeks that the price has dipped below the 35p/unit cap ** by more than a couple of pence.
Tomorrow morning they’ll pay 2.21/unit (just for 30 mins) but between midnight and 06:00 the average unit price is 5.602p.
Sunamp *, washing machine and dishwasher will be in the starting blocks at midnight.
* A Sunamp is a phase change heat battery, that stores energy far more effectively than an insulated hot water tank. But is still rather expensive. ** The 35p per unit relates to the price around the peak period in the evening. You need to be able to time shift loads to avoid it.
That's really rather clever.
Its an interesting start at what I guess we can call "demand shaping". Same principles as night tariff.
To save much you have to work at it, though.
Here is the Buildhub Boffins Corner thread with some commentary, and a script which will pull the historic tariff data from the Octopus API.
I don't have a big time switcheable load (yet) eg heatpump for the ifh or heat battery, so no use to me at this time.
These are the basics from @TerryE over there: Though the algorithm is compromised by the current market chaos.
... the ToU tariff is cheaper in comparison to current single rate and E7 "flexible" tariffs, so long as you can stick to some basic rules:
- Use the Midnight - 6AM window as much as possible for high-load stuff. - Avoid the 15:30 - 18:30 peak demand pricing where practical and move as much daytime use out of this window. About the only use we have in this window is for "always on" devices and cooking and this is rarely more than 1 kWh during this window.
The price can fall considerably on an infrequent basis (11:00 - 14:30 on sunny days in the summer; anytime the wind is blowing).
If you have a Home automation system and use the daily price forecast API, then you can reduce your electricity overall costs further. Analysing our past usage E7 saves us about £15 / week in the winter months and a ToU tarrif would increase this saving to £20-25.
Bloody hell I managed to get a Pixel 6 Pro 256GB! No idea how, it just randomly went through, a few of my mates are annoyed because it's fully out of stock now.
Make sure you remember to claim the free Bose headphones.
Bloody hell I managed to get a Pixel 6 Pro 256GB! No idea how, it just randomly went through, a few of my mates are annoyed because it's fully out of stock now.
What's the Pixel like? How's it compare to the Galaxy series?
I've got an S9 that only charges wirelessly as its USB-C adaptor has died, but other than that it still works great. Tempted to get a new phone soon just because the lack of cable charging is frustrating, but less tempted to stick with Samsung anymore since this isn't my first one to have that issue.
Corbyn really did bequeath Starmer a toxic legacy.
The problem is that Starmer isn't up to the job either.
Nonsense. I am not a Labour supporter, but Starmer has a great deal more credibility than the Clown that currently occupies No10. It is a long time before the next election. The big problem that Starmer has is not his own ability or credibility, it is that there is still a large part of the Labour Party that is even more ludicrous than many of those of the current government benches. History will judge how he does the long haul.
He reminds me a lot of Cameron: Massively underestimated by those in his own party that would rather have someone else, and derided by his opponents because they are simply too tribal or plain stupid to realise that he might just make it.
I agree with some of that: but Cameron always had a vision - even if you disagreed with it. Starmer seems unable to project any vision he may have without writing a WORN (*) magnum opus. Events haven't helped him, as the country and media are concentrating on bigger events.
Blair was a salesman. Cameron was also a salesman, to a lesser extent. Starmer doesn't appear to be one - and he needs to sell his vision for the country, to both the country and his own party.
(*) Write Once, Read Never. A common form of computer documentation.
"Blair was a salesman. Cameron was also a salesman, to a lesser extent. Starmer doesn't appear to be one - and he needs to sell his vision for the country, to both the country and his own party." - pretty much the whole reason I think Sir Keir won't be PM - plus the fact he is up against a very charismatic salesman
In a way, they appear polar opposites. Starmer may have a vision (I've no idea given he seems incapable of saying it); Boris doesn't have a vision beyond the end of his nose, but can sell the snot that dribbles out by the barrel-load.
We need a hideous scientific experiment where the two are merged together. Starson or Johnmer.
(I actually quite like Starson. Very sci-fi)
I saw a clip of Blair as LotO at PMQs the other day, and he seemed like he was bossing it vs Major (the famous one "I lead my party, he follows his", seems so horribly smug watching it now), and to an extent Cameron did with Brown, from what I can recall.
Miliband and Sir Keir always seem like they are earnestly whining about it being so unfair to me; maybe it's just the lack of gravitas in their voices. They seem like kids complaining about their parents, in comparison to the last couple of LotOs who became PM
No, he doesn't come over as whining to his parents about it being so unfair. The "wooden" critique is fair enough but you're just indulging yourself with this. Surprised you haven't as yet found fault with his eyebrows btw. Or have I missed that?
Comes over to me as whining to his parents about it being so unfair. He has a whiny voice, like Ed Miliband has, and coupled with his whole schtik being how nasty the govt and Boris are, it seems a bit "poor me"
Don't know about his eyebrows - he looks like a Teddy Boy who likes a beer to me, but Boris is no pin up either, so it doesn't really affect things
A deathly dull teddy boy with a whiny voice who likes a beer. It's pouring out now.
No point opposing such naked prejudice with reason, I've learnt this, but just on the voice - it's not whiny, it's a touch flat & nasal, which is completely different.
And what about your man "Boris". How does HE come over to you? Eg when he stands up and says he's going to "get social care done". Does this sort of thing come across as dynamic and determined, or like he has no clue what he's talking about and operates on pure bullshit?
Ooh, prejudice!!!
I used to absolute despise Boris, based almost solely on a combination of class hatred and inability to see how anyone could fall for his bluster - I wouldn't say he was my man now, I voted for him with a heavy heart and a lot of sadness at finally going over to the dark side. But he was the only one offering to honour the referendum result. As I have got older I can appreciate that a bit of charisma and optimism goes a long way, and dreary righteousness is unappealing
Ok, you're being your best self with that answer, so I'll take it without disbelief or rancour. At least for now.
Let me fill you in on what a contemptible prick starmer is:
Starmer as DPP was effectively in charge of prosecutions before juries. He was the country's leading authority on Not Prejudicing Trials. Against that background, he held a press conference to announce that the admittedly appalling Chris Huhne would be prosecuted for lying his head off. Now, what is the likely effect of that press conference on a potential juror? They are going to think, if they pay any attention at all, There wouldn't have been a press conference about this on national TV if there was nothing in it. And what's the benefit of holding the press conference? It's to raise Kier's fucking political profile.
Corbyn really did bequeath Starmer a toxic legacy.
The problem is that Starmer isn't up to the job either.
Nonsense. I am not a Labour supporter, but Starmer has a great deal more credibility than the Clown that currently occupies No10. It is a long time before the next election. The big problem that Starmer has is not his own ability or credibility, it is that there is still a large part of the Labour Party that is even more ludicrous than many of those of the current government benches. History will judge how he does the long haul.
He reminds me a lot of Cameron: Massively underestimated by those in his own party that would rather have someone else, and derided by his opponents because they are simply too tribal or plain stupid to realise that he might just make it.
I agree with some of that: but Cameron always had a vision - even if you disagreed with it. Starmer seems unable to project any vision he may have without writing a WORN (*) magnum opus. Events haven't helped him, as the country and media are concentrating on bigger events.
Blair was a salesman. Cameron was also a salesman, to a lesser extent. Starmer doesn't appear to be one - and he needs to sell his vision for the country, to both the country and his own party.
(*) Write Once, Read Never. A common form of computer documentation.
"Blair was a salesman. Cameron was also a salesman, to a lesser extent. Starmer doesn't appear to be one - and he needs to sell his vision for the country, to both the country and his own party." - pretty much the whole reason I think Sir Keir won't be PM - plus the fact he is up against a very charismatic salesman
In a way, they appear polar opposites. Starmer may have a vision (I've no idea given he seems incapable of saying it); Boris doesn't have a vision beyond the end of his nose, but can sell the snot that dribbles out by the barrel-load.
We need a hideous scientific experiment where the two are merged together. Starson or Johnmer.
(I actually quite like Starson. Very sci-fi)
I saw a clip of Blair as LotO at PMQs the other day, and he seemed like he was bossing it vs Major (the famous one "I lead my party, he follows his", seems so horribly smug watching it now), and to an extent Cameron did with Brown, from what I can recall.
Miliband and Sir Keir always seem like they are earnestly whining about it being so unfair to me; maybe it's just the lack of gravitas in their voices. They seem like kids complaining about their parents, in comparison to the last couple of LotOs who became PM
No, he doesn't come over as whining to his parents about it being so unfair. The "wooden" critique is fair enough but you're just indulging yourself with this. Surprised you haven't as yet found fault with his eyebrows btw. Or have I missed that?
Comes over to me as whining to his parents about it being so unfair. He has a whiny voice, like Ed Miliband has, and coupled with his whole schtik being how nasty the govt and Boris are, it seems a bit "poor me"
Don't know about his eyebrows - he looks like a Teddy Boy who likes a beer to me, but Boris is no pin up either, so it doesn't really affect things
A deathly dull teddy boy with a whiny voice who likes a beer. It's pouring out now.
No point opposing such naked prejudice with reason, I've learnt this, but just on the voice - it's not whiny, it's a touch flat & nasal, which is completely different.
And what about your man "Boris". How does HE come over to you? Eg when he stands up and says he's going to "get social care done". Does this sort of thing come across as dynamic and determined, or like he has no clue what he's talking about and operates on pure bullshit?
Ooh, prejudice!!!
I used to absolute despise Boris, based almost solely on a combination of class hatred and inability to see how anyone could fall for his bluster - I wouldn't say he was my man now, I voted for him with a heavy heart and a lot of sadness at finally going over to the dark side. But he was the only one offering to honour the referendum result. As I have got older I can appreciate that a bit of charisma and optimism goes a long way, and dreary righteousness is unappealing
Ok, you're being your best self with that answer, so I'll take it without disbelief or rancour. At least for now.
Let me fill you in on what a contemptible prick starmer is:
Starmer as DPP was effectively in charge of prosecutions before juries. He was the country's leading authority on Not Prejudicing Trials. Against that background, he held a press conference to announce that the admittedly appalling Chris Huhne would be prosecuted for lying his head off. Now, what is the likely effect of that press conference on a potential juror? They are going to think, if they pay any attention at all, There wouldn't have been a press conference about this on national TV if there was nothing in it. And what's the benefit of holding the press conference? It's to raise Kier's fucking political profile.
An unprincipled twat.
So despite all evidence to the contrary, he is actually a politician?
Bloody hell I managed to get a Pixel 6 Pro 256GB! No idea how, it just randomly went through, a few of my mates are annoyed because it's fully out of stock now.
What's the Pixel like? How's it compare to the Galaxy series?
I've got an S9 that only charges wirelessly as its USB-C adaptor has died, but other than that it still works great. Tempted to get a new phone soon just because the lack of cable charging is frustrating, but less tempted to stick with Samsung anymore since this isn't my first one to have that issue.
It's way, way better than anything Samsung. I've been using a temporary S20 while I've been waiting for the Pixel 6 series and it's a huge downgrade over the Pixel I had before in terms of usability. The 6 Pro looks incredible, happy I managed to get one. The main issue I have with Samsung is service replication, they just have all of their own bullshit they pollute their phones with. A pixel device doesn't have any of that shite. If you use the Samsung stuff then you might be stuck in their ecosystem, but most people don't.
Corbyn really did bequeath Starmer a toxic legacy.
The problem is that Starmer isn't up to the job either.
Nonsense. I am not a Labour supporter, but Starmer has a great deal more credibility than the Clown that currently occupies No10. It is a long time before the next election. The big problem that Starmer has is not his own ability or credibility, it is that there is still a large part of the Labour Party that is even more ludicrous than many of those of the current government benches. History will judge how he does the long haul.
He reminds me a lot of Cameron: Massively underestimated by those in his own party that would rather have someone else, and derided by his opponents because they are simply too tribal or plain stupid to realise that he might just make it.
I agree with some of that: but Cameron always had a vision - even if you disagreed with it. Starmer seems unable to project any vision he may have without writing a WORN (*) magnum opus. Events haven't helped him, as the country and media are concentrating on bigger events.
Blair was a salesman. Cameron was also a salesman, to a lesser extent. Starmer doesn't appear to be one - and he needs to sell his vision for the country, to both the country and his own party.
(*) Write Once, Read Never. A common form of computer documentation.
"Blair was a salesman. Cameron was also a salesman, to a lesser extent. Starmer doesn't appear to be one - and he needs to sell his vision for the country, to both the country and his own party." - pretty much the whole reason I think Sir Keir won't be PM - plus the fact he is up against a very charismatic salesman
In a way, they appear polar opposites. Starmer may have a vision (I've no idea given he seems incapable of saying it); Boris doesn't have a vision beyond the end of his nose, but can sell the snot that dribbles out by the barrel-load.
We need a hideous scientific experiment where the two are merged together. Starson or Johnmer.
(I actually quite like Starson. Very sci-fi)
I saw a clip of Blair as LotO at PMQs the other day, and he seemed like he was bossing it vs Major (the famous one "I lead my party, he follows his", seems so horribly smug watching it now), and to an extent Cameron did with Brown, from what I can recall.
Miliband and Sir Keir always seem like they are earnestly whining about it being so unfair to me; maybe it's just the lack of gravitas in their voices. They seem like kids complaining about their parents, in comparison to the last couple of LotOs who became PM
No, he doesn't come over as whining to his parents about it being so unfair. The "wooden" critique is fair enough but you're just indulging yourself with this. Surprised you haven't as yet found fault with his eyebrows btw. Or have I missed that?
Comes over to me as whining to his parents about it being so unfair. He has a whiny voice, like Ed Miliband has, and coupled with his whole schtik being how nasty the govt and Boris are, it seems a bit "poor me"
Don't know about his eyebrows - he looks like a Teddy Boy who likes a beer to me, but Boris is no pin up either, so it doesn't really affect things
A deathly dull teddy boy with a whiny voice who likes a beer. It's pouring out now.
No point opposing such naked prejudice with reason, I've learnt this, but just on the voice - it's not whiny, it's a touch flat & nasal, which is completely different.
And what about your man "Boris". How does HE come over to you? Eg when he stands up and says he's going to "get social care done". Does this sort of thing come across as dynamic and determined, or like he has no clue what he's talking about and operates on pure bullshit?
Ooh, prejudice!!!
I used to absolute despise Boris, based almost solely on a combination of class hatred and inability to see how anyone could fall for his bluster - I wouldn't say he was my man now, I voted for him with a heavy heart and a lot of sadness at finally going over to the dark side. But he was the only one offering to honour the referendum result. As I have got older I can appreciate that a bit of charisma and optimism goes a long way, and dreary righteousness is unappealing
Ok, you're being your best self with that answer, so I'll take it without disbelief or rancour. At least for now.
Let me fill you in on what a contemptible prick starmer is:
Starmer as DPP was effectively in charge of prosecutions before juries. He was the country's leading authority on Not Prejudicing Trials. Against that background, he held a press conference to announce that the admittedly appalling Chris Huhne would be prosecuted for lying his head off. Now, what is the likely effect of that press conference on a potential juror? They are going to think, if they pay any attention at all, There wouldn't have been a press conference about this on national TV if there was nothing in it. And what's the benefit of holding the press conference? It's to raise Kier's fucking political profile.
An unprincipled twat.
Paul Gambacinni is going to stand against him at the next GE, so he might not even be an MP!
"“I have the most negative feelings about Keir Starmer imaginable. Countless human beings were tormented because of him and he has never apologised. Keir is not only unsuitable to be leader of the Labour Party, he is unsuitable for any public position down to and including dog-catcher. He serves only himself and not the people.”
The extraordinary attack on the leadership hopeful is particularly wounding because Mr Gambacinni has been a prominent supporter of Labour. He has supported the party since the late 1980s and, until his arrest in 2013, hosted fundraisers for Ed Miliband at his London home.
Mr Gambacinni says other of the party’s celebrity supporters have spoken out against Sir Keir. He claims the actor Stephen Fry told an audience at a Labour fundraiser in 2014 “to remember a basic tenet of British justice: innocent until proven guilty — and pointed out that Operation Yewtree was losing more cases than it was winning”.
In 2015, Mr Tarbuck, 79, broke down in tears on a television talk show discussing his arrest in 2013 over false allegations of child sex abuse in the 1970. His accusers said they were molested on Top of the Pops in 1963. Tarbuck pointed out that he had never appeared on the show, which didn’t even begin till 1964. It took the CPS almost a year to clear him."
Corbyn really did bequeath Starmer a toxic legacy.
The problem is that Starmer isn't up to the job either.
Nonsense. I am not a Labour supporter, but Starmer has a great deal more credibility than the Clown that currently occupies No10. It is a long time before the next election. The big problem that Starmer has is not his own ability or credibility, it is that there is still a large part of the Labour Party that is even more ludicrous than many of those of the current government benches. History will judge how he does the long haul.
He reminds me a lot of Cameron: Massively underestimated by those in his own party that would rather have someone else, and derided by his opponents because they are simply too tribal or plain stupid to realise that he might just make it.
I agree with some of that: but Cameron always had a vision - even if you disagreed with it. Starmer seems unable to project any vision he may have without writing a WORN (*) magnum opus. Events haven't helped him, as the country and media are concentrating on bigger events.
Blair was a salesman. Cameron was also a salesman, to a lesser extent. Starmer doesn't appear to be one - and he needs to sell his vision for the country, to both the country and his own party.
(*) Write Once, Read Never. A common form of computer documentation.
"Blair was a salesman. Cameron was also a salesman, to a lesser extent. Starmer doesn't appear to be one - and he needs to sell his vision for the country, to both the country and his own party." - pretty much the whole reason I think Sir Keir won't be PM - plus the fact he is up against a very charismatic salesman
In a way, they appear polar opposites. Starmer may have a vision (I've no idea given he seems incapable of saying it); Boris doesn't have a vision beyond the end of his nose, but can sell the snot that dribbles out by the barrel-load.
We need a hideous scientific experiment where the two are merged together. Starson or Johnmer.
(I actually quite like Starson. Very sci-fi)
I saw a clip of Blair as LotO at PMQs the other day, and he seemed like he was bossing it vs Major (the famous one "I lead my party, he follows his", seems so horribly smug watching it now), and to an extent Cameron did with Brown, from what I can recall.
Miliband and Sir Keir always seem like they are earnestly whining about it being so unfair to me; maybe it's just the lack of gravitas in their voices. They seem like kids complaining about their parents, in comparison to the last couple of LotOs who became PM
No, he doesn't come over as whining to his parents about it being so unfair. The "wooden" critique is fair enough but you're just indulging yourself with this. Surprised you haven't as yet found fault with his eyebrows btw. Or have I missed that?
Comes over to me as whining to his parents about it being so unfair. He has a whiny voice, like Ed Miliband has, and coupled with his whole schtik being how nasty the govt and Boris are, it seems a bit "poor me"
Don't know about his eyebrows - he looks like a Teddy Boy who likes a beer to me, but Boris is no pin up either, so it doesn't really affect things
A deathly dull teddy boy with a whiny voice who likes a beer. It's pouring out now.
No point opposing such naked prejudice with reason, I've learnt this, but just on the voice - it's not whiny, it's a touch flat & nasal, which is completely different.
And what about your man "Boris". How does HE come over to you? Eg when he stands up and says he's going to "get social care done". Does this sort of thing come across as dynamic and determined, or like he has no clue what he's talking about and operates on pure bullshit?
Ooh, prejudice!!!
I used to absolute despise Boris, based almost solely on a combination of class hatred and inability to see how anyone could fall for his bluster - I wouldn't say he was my man now, I voted for him with a heavy heart and a lot of sadness at finally going over to the dark side. But he was the only one offering to honour the referendum result. As I have got older I can appreciate that a bit of charisma and optimism goes a long way, and dreary righteousness is unappealing
Ok, you're being your best self with that answer, so I'll take it without disbelief or rancour. At least for now.
Let me fill you in on what a contemptible prick starmer is:
Starmer as DPP was effectively in charge of prosecutions before juries. He was the country's leading authority on Not Prejudicing Trials. Against that background, he held a press conference to announce that the admittedly appalling Chris Huhne would be prosecuted for lying his head off. Now, what is the likely effect of that press conference on a potential juror? They are going to think, if they pay any attention at all, There wouldn't have been a press conference about this on national TV if there was nothing in it. And what's the benefit of holding the press conference? It's to raise Kier's fucking political profile.
An unprincipled twat.
So despite all evidence to the contrary, he is actually a politician?
Bloody hell I managed to get a Pixel 6 Pro 256GB! No idea how, it just randomly went through, a few of my mates are annoyed because it's fully out of stock now.
What's the Pixel like? How's it compare to the Galaxy series?
I've got an S9 that only charges wirelessly as its USB-C adaptor has died, but other than that it still works great. Tempted to get a new phone soon just because the lack of cable charging is frustrating, but less tempted to stick with Samsung anymore since this isn't my first one to have that issue.
It's way, way better than anything Samsung. I've been using a temporary S20 while I've been waiting for the Pixel 6 series and it's a huge downgrade over the Pixel I had before in terms of usability. The 6 Pro looks incredible, happy I managed to get one. The main issue I have with Samsung is service replication, they just have all of their own bullshit they pollute their phones with. A pixel device doesn't have any of that shite. If you use the Samsung stuff then you might be stuck in their ecosystem, but most people don't.
I have a Samsung Watch so not sure if there's a Gear app for Pixel. That's the only big one for me. I currently use Samsung's pay app almost any time I pay for anything in-person but Google Pay would work just as well for that.
Corbyn really did bequeath Starmer a toxic legacy.
The problem is that Starmer isn't up to the job either.
Nonsense. I am not a Labour supporter, but Starmer has a great deal more credibility than the Clown that currently occupies No10. It is a long time before the next election. The big problem that Starmer has is not his own ability or credibility, it is that there is still a large part of the Labour Party that is even more ludicrous than many of those of the current government benches. History will judge how he does the long haul.
He reminds me a lot of Cameron: Massively underestimated by those in his own party that would rather have someone else, and derided by his opponents because they are simply too tribal or plain stupid to realise that he might just make it.
I agree with some of that: but Cameron always had a vision - even if you disagreed with it. Starmer seems unable to project any vision he may have without writing a WORN (*) magnum opus. Events haven't helped him, as the country and media are concentrating on bigger events.
Blair was a salesman. Cameron was also a salesman, to a lesser extent. Starmer doesn't appear to be one - and he needs to sell his vision for the country, to both the country and his own party.
(*) Write Once, Read Never. A common form of computer documentation.
"Blair was a salesman. Cameron was also a salesman, to a lesser extent. Starmer doesn't appear to be one - and he needs to sell his vision for the country, to both the country and his own party." - pretty much the whole reason I think Sir Keir won't be PM - plus the fact he is up against a very charismatic salesman
In a way, they appear polar opposites. Starmer may have a vision (I've no idea given he seems incapable of saying it); Boris doesn't have a vision beyond the end of his nose, but can sell the snot that dribbles out by the barrel-load.
We need a hideous scientific experiment where the two are merged together. Starson or Johnmer.
(I actually quite like Starson. Very sci-fi)
I saw a clip of Blair as LotO at PMQs the other day, and he seemed like he was bossing it vs Major (the famous one "I lead my party, he follows his", seems so horribly smug watching it now), and to an extent Cameron did with Brown, from what I can recall.
Miliband and Sir Keir always seem like they are earnestly whining about it being so unfair to me; maybe it's just the lack of gravitas in their voices. They seem like kids complaining about their parents, in comparison to the last couple of LotOs who became PM
No, he doesn't come over as whining to his parents about it being so unfair. The "wooden" critique is fair enough but you're just indulging yourself with this. Surprised you haven't as yet found fault with his eyebrows btw. Or have I missed that?
Comes over to me as whining to his parents about it being so unfair. He has a whiny voice, like Ed Miliband has, and coupled with his whole schtik being how nasty the govt and Boris are, it seems a bit "poor me"
Don't know about his eyebrows - he looks like a Teddy Boy who likes a beer to me, but Boris is no pin up either, so it doesn't really affect things
A deathly dull teddy boy with a whiny voice who likes a beer. It's pouring out now.
No point opposing such naked prejudice with reason, I've learnt this, but just on the voice - it's not whiny, it's a touch flat & nasal, which is completely different.
And what about your man "Boris". How does HE come over to you? Eg when he stands up and says he's going to "get social care done". Does this sort of thing come across as dynamic and determined, or like he has no clue what he's talking about and operates on pure bullshit?
Ooh, prejudice!!!
I used to absolute despise Boris, based almost solely on a combination of class hatred and inability to see how anyone could fall for his bluster - I wouldn't say he was my man now, I voted for him with a heavy heart and a lot of sadness at finally going over to the dark side. But he was the only one offering to honour the referendum result. As I have got older I can appreciate that a bit of charisma and optimism goes a long way, and dreary righteousness is unappealing
Ok, you're being your best self with that answer, so I'll take it without disbelief or rancour. At least for now.
Let me fill you in on what a contemptible prick starmer is:
Starmer as DPP was effectively in charge of prosecutions before juries. He was the country's leading authority on Not Prejudicing Trials. Against that background, he held a press conference to announce that the admittedly appalling Chris Huhne would be prosecuted for lying his head off. Now, what is the likely effect of that press conference on a potential juror? They are going to think, if they pay any attention at all, There wouldn't have been a press conference about this on national TV if there was nothing in it. And what's the benefit of holding the press conference? It's to raise Kier's fucking political profile.
An unprincipled twat.
So despite all evidence to the contrary, he is actually a politician?
Yeah killer point. But if he can't behave honourably as a lawyer, what can we expect from him as a politician?
Corbyn really did bequeath Starmer a toxic legacy.
The problem is that Starmer isn't up to the job either.
Nonsense. I am not a Labour supporter, but Starmer has a great deal more credibility than the Clown that currently occupies No10. It is a long time before the next election. The big problem that Starmer has is not his own ability or credibility, it is that there is still a large part of the Labour Party that is even more ludicrous than many of those of the current government benches. History will judge how he does the long haul.
He reminds me a lot of Cameron: Massively underestimated by those in his own party that would rather have someone else, and derided by his opponents because they are simply too tribal or plain stupid to realise that he might just make it.
I agree with some of that: but Cameron always had a vision - even if you disagreed with it. Starmer seems unable to project any vision he may have without writing a WORN (*) magnum opus. Events haven't helped him, as the country and media are concentrating on bigger events.
Blair was a salesman. Cameron was also a salesman, to a lesser extent. Starmer doesn't appear to be one - and he needs to sell his vision for the country, to both the country and his own party.
(*) Write Once, Read Never. A common form of computer documentation.
"Blair was a salesman. Cameron was also a salesman, to a lesser extent. Starmer doesn't appear to be one - and he needs to sell his vision for the country, to both the country and his own party." - pretty much the whole reason I think Sir Keir won't be PM - plus the fact he is up against a very charismatic salesman
In a way, they appear polar opposites. Starmer may have a vision (I've no idea given he seems incapable of saying it); Boris doesn't have a vision beyond the end of his nose, but can sell the snot that dribbles out by the barrel-load.
We need a hideous scientific experiment where the two are merged together. Starson or Johnmer.
(I actually quite like Starson. Very sci-fi)
I saw a clip of Blair as LotO at PMQs the other day, and he seemed like he was bossing it vs Major (the famous one "I lead my party, he follows his", seems so horribly smug watching it now), and to an extent Cameron did with Brown, from what I can recall.
Miliband and Sir Keir always seem like they are earnestly whining about it being so unfair to me; maybe it's just the lack of gravitas in their voices. They seem like kids complaining about their parents, in comparison to the last couple of LotOs who became PM
No, he doesn't come over as whining to his parents about it being so unfair. The "wooden" critique is fair enough but you're just indulging yourself with this. Surprised you haven't as yet found fault with his eyebrows btw. Or have I missed that?
Comes over to me as whining to his parents about it being so unfair. He has a whiny voice, like Ed Miliband has, and coupled with his whole schtik being how nasty the govt and Boris are, it seems a bit "poor me"
Don't know about his eyebrows - he looks like a Teddy Boy who likes a beer to me, but Boris is no pin up either, so it doesn't really affect things
A deathly dull teddy boy with a whiny voice who likes a beer. It's pouring out now.
No point opposing such naked prejudice with reason, I've learnt this, but just on the voice - it's not whiny, it's a touch flat & nasal, which is completely different.
And what about your man "Boris". How does HE come over to you? Eg when he stands up and says he's going to "get social care done". Does this sort of thing come across as dynamic and determined, or like he has no clue what he's talking about and operates on pure bullshit?
Ooh, prejudice!!!
I used to absolute despise Boris, based almost solely on a combination of class hatred and inability to see how anyone could fall for his bluster - I wouldn't say he was my man now, I voted for him with a heavy heart and a lot of sadness at finally going over to the dark side. But he was the only one offering to honour the referendum result. As I have got older I can appreciate that a bit of charisma and optimism goes a long way, and dreary righteousness is unappealing
Ok, you're being your best self with that answer, so I'll take it without disbelief or rancour. At least for now.
Let me fill you in on what a contemptible prick starmer is:
Starmer as DPP was effectively in charge of prosecutions before juries. He was the country's leading authority on Not Prejudicing Trials. Against that background, he held a press conference to announce that the admittedly appalling Chris Huhne would be prosecuted for lying his head off. Now, what is the likely effect of that press conference on a potential juror? They are going to think, if they pay any attention at all, There wouldn't have been a press conference about this on national TV if there was nothing in it. And what's the benefit of holding the press conference? It's to raise Kier's fucking political profile.
An unprincipled twat.
Paul Gambacinni is going to stand against him at the next GE, so he might not even be an MP!
"“I have the most negative feelings about Keir Starmer imaginable. Countless human beings were tormented because of him and he has never apologised. Keir is not only unsuitable to be leader of the Labour Party, he is unsuitable for any public position down to and including dog-catcher. He serves only himself and not the people.”
The extraordinary attack on the leadership hopeful is particularly wounding because Mr Gambacinni has been a prominent supporter of Labour. He has supported the party since the late 1980s and, until his arrest in 2013, hosted fundraisers for Ed Miliband at his London home.
Mr Gambacinni says other of the party’s celebrity supporters have spoken out against Sir Keir. He claims the actor Stephen Fry told an audience at a Labour fundraiser in 2014 “to remember a basic tenet of British justice: innocent until proven guilty — and pointed out that Operation Yewtree was losing more cases than it was winning”.
In 2015, Mr Tarbuck, 79, broke down in tears on a television talk show discussing his arrest in 2013 over false allegations of child sex abuse in the 1970. His accusers said they were molested on Top of the Pops in 1963. Tarbuck pointed out that he had never appeared on the show, which didn’t even begin till 1964. It took the CPS almost a year to clear him."
Bloody hell I managed to get a Pixel 6 Pro 256GB! No idea how, it just randomly went through, a few of my mates are annoyed because it's fully out of stock now.
What's the Pixel like? How's it compare to the Galaxy series?
I've got an S9 that only charges wirelessly as its USB-C adaptor has died, but other than that it still works great. Tempted to get a new phone soon just because the lack of cable charging is frustrating, but less tempted to stick with Samsung anymore since this isn't my first one to have that issue.
It's way, way better than anything Samsung. I've been using a temporary S20 while I've been waiting for the Pixel 6 series and it's a huge downgrade over the Pixel I had before in terms of usability. The 6 Pro looks incredible, happy I managed to get one. The main issue I have with Samsung is service replication, they just have all of their own bullshit they pollute their phones with. A pixel device doesn't have any of that shite. If you use the Samsung stuff then you might be stuck in their ecosystem, but most people don't.
Samsung do install a load of rubbish that is well worth removing. That's what Lineage is for.
I still have an S5 running Android 11 - works perfectly well for me, but then I'm not a heavy user (GPS / barometer / mapping, mostly).
Bloody hell I managed to get a Pixel 6 Pro 256GB! No idea how, it just randomly went through, a few of my mates are annoyed because it's fully out of stock now.
What's the Pixel like? How's it compare to the Galaxy series?
I've got an S9 that only charges wirelessly as its USB-C adaptor has died, but other than that it still works great. Tempted to get a new phone soon just because the lack of cable charging is frustrating, but less tempted to stick with Samsung anymore since this isn't my first one to have that issue.
It's way, way better than anything Samsung. I've been using a temporary S20 while I've been waiting for the Pixel 6 series and it's a huge downgrade over the Pixel I had before in terms of usability. The 6 Pro looks incredible, happy I managed to get one. The main issue I have with Samsung is service replication, they just have all of their own bullshit they pollute their phones with. A pixel device doesn't have any of that shite. If you use the Samsung stuff then you might be stuck in their ecosystem, but most people don't.
I have a Samsung Watch so not sure if there's a Gear app for Pixel. That's the only big one for me. I currently use Samsung's pay app almost any time I pay for anything in-person but Google Pay would work just as well for that.
2-2 what a game so far.
Yeah the Samsung app will work fine on any Android phone and Google Pay is actually pretty handy these days. There's still November delivery black 6 Pro 128GB phones available, I'd grab one and then cancel if you change your mind.
Anyone who hasn’t realised that the Tory’s game is to put up taxes now in order to bring them down just before the election is not paying attention.
And what they'll do is raise taxes on working people with NI and lower income tax. It will be a net transfer of wealth from working people to retired people.
Corbyn really did bequeath Starmer a toxic legacy.
The problem is that Starmer isn't up to the job either.
Nonsense. I am not a Labour supporter, but Starmer has a great deal more credibility than the Clown that currently occupies No10. It is a long time before the next election. The big problem that Starmer has is not his own ability or credibility, it is that there is still a large part of the Labour Party that is even more ludicrous than many of those of the current government benches. History will judge how he does the long haul.
He reminds me a lot of Cameron: Massively underestimated by those in his own party that would rather have someone else, and derided by his opponents because they are simply too tribal or plain stupid to realise that he might just make it.
I agree with some of that: but Cameron always had a vision - even if you disagreed with it. Starmer seems unable to project any vision he may have without writing a WORN (*) magnum opus. Events haven't helped him, as the country and media are concentrating on bigger events.
Blair was a salesman. Cameron was also a salesman, to a lesser extent. Starmer doesn't appear to be one - and he needs to sell his vision for the country, to both the country and his own party.
(*) Write Once, Read Never. A common form of computer documentation.
"Blair was a salesman. Cameron was also a salesman, to a lesser extent. Starmer doesn't appear to be one - and he needs to sell his vision for the country, to both the country and his own party." - pretty much the whole reason I think Sir Keir won't be PM - plus the fact he is up against a very charismatic salesman
In a way, they appear polar opposites. Starmer may have a vision (I've no idea given he seems incapable of saying it); Boris doesn't have a vision beyond the end of his nose, but can sell the snot that dribbles out by the barrel-load.
We need a hideous scientific experiment where the two are merged together. Starson or Johnmer.
(I actually quite like Starson. Very sci-fi)
I saw a clip of Blair as LotO at PMQs the other day, and he seemed like he was bossing it vs Major (the famous one "I lead my party, he follows his", seems so horribly smug watching it now), and to an extent Cameron did with Brown, from what I can recall.
Miliband and Sir Keir always seem like they are earnestly whining about it being so unfair to me; maybe it's just the lack of gravitas in their voices. They seem like kids complaining about their parents, in comparison to the last couple of LotOs who became PM
No, he doesn't come over as whining to his parents about it being so unfair. The "wooden" critique is fair enough but you're just indulging yourself with this. Surprised you haven't as yet found fault with his eyebrows btw. Or have I missed that?
Comes over to me as whining to his parents about it being so unfair. He has a whiny voice, like Ed Miliband has, and coupled with his whole schtik being how nasty the govt and Boris are, it seems a bit "poor me"
Don't know about his eyebrows - he looks like a Teddy Boy who likes a beer to me, but Boris is no pin up either, so it doesn't really affect things
A deathly dull teddy boy with a whiny voice who likes a beer. It's pouring out now.
No point opposing such naked prejudice with reason, I've learnt this, but just on the voice - it's not whiny, it's a touch flat & nasal, which is completely different.
And what about your man "Boris". How does HE come over to you? Eg when he stands up and says he's going to "get social care done". Does this sort of thing come across as dynamic and determined, or like he has no clue what he's talking about and operates on pure bullshit?
Ooh, prejudice!!!
I used to absolute despise Boris, based almost solely on a combination of class hatred and inability to see how anyone could fall for his bluster - I wouldn't say he was my man now, I voted for him with a heavy heart and a lot of sadness at finally going over to the dark side. But he was the only one offering to honour the referendum result. As I have got older I can appreciate that a bit of charisma and optimism goes a long way, and dreary righteousness is unappealing
Ok, you're being your best self with that answer, so I'll take it without disbelief or rancour. At least for now.
Let me fill you in on what a contemptible prick starmer is:
Starmer as DPP was effectively in charge of prosecutions before juries. He was the country's leading authority on Not Prejudicing Trials. Against that background, he held a press conference to announce that the admittedly appalling Chris Huhne would be prosecuted for lying his head off. Now, what is the likely effect of that press conference on a potential juror? They are going to think, if they pay any attention at all, There wouldn't have been a press conference about this on national TV if there was nothing in it. And what's the benefit of holding the press conference? It's to raise Kier's fucking political profile.
An unprincipled twat.
So despite all evidence to the contrary, he is actually a politician?
Yeah killer point. But if he can't behave honourably as a lawyer, what can we expect from him as a politician?
We already know that.
He stayed in Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet and said he'd serve in a real Cabinet and support Corbyn as PM even after all the antisemitism came up.
Corbyn really did bequeath Starmer a toxic legacy.
The problem is that Starmer isn't up to the job either.
Nonsense. I am not a Labour supporter, but Starmer has a great deal more credibility than the Clown that currently occupies No10. It is a long time before the next election. The big problem that Starmer has is not his own ability or credibility, it is that there is still a large part of the Labour Party that is even more ludicrous than many of those of the current government benches. History will judge how he does the long haul.
He reminds me a lot of Cameron: Massively underestimated by those in his own party that would rather have someone else, and derided by his opponents because they are simply too tribal or plain stupid to realise that he might just make it.
I agree with some of that: but Cameron always had a vision - even if you disagreed with it. Starmer seems unable to project any vision he may have without writing a WORN (*) magnum opus. Events haven't helped him, as the country and media are concentrating on bigger events.
Blair was a salesman. Cameron was also a salesman, to a lesser extent. Starmer doesn't appear to be one - and he needs to sell his vision for the country, to both the country and his own party.
(*) Write Once, Read Never. A common form of computer documentation.
"Blair was a salesman. Cameron was also a salesman, to a lesser extent. Starmer doesn't appear to be one - and he needs to sell his vision for the country, to both the country and his own party." - pretty much the whole reason I think Sir Keir won't be PM - plus the fact he is up against a very charismatic salesman
In a way, they appear polar opposites. Starmer may have a vision (I've no idea given he seems incapable of saying it); Boris doesn't have a vision beyond the end of his nose, but can sell the snot that dribbles out by the barrel-load.
We need a hideous scientific experiment where the two are merged together. Starson or Johnmer.
(I actually quite like Starson. Very sci-fi)
I saw a clip of Blair as LotO at PMQs the other day, and he seemed like he was bossing it vs Major (the famous one "I lead my party, he follows his", seems so horribly smug watching it now), and to an extent Cameron did with Brown, from what I can recall.
Miliband and Sir Keir always seem like they are earnestly whining about it being so unfair to me; maybe it's just the lack of gravitas in their voices. They seem like kids complaining about their parents, in comparison to the last couple of LotOs who became PM
No, he doesn't come over as whining to his parents about it being so unfair. The "wooden" critique is fair enough but you're just indulging yourself with this. Surprised you haven't as yet found fault with his eyebrows btw. Or have I missed that?
Comes over to me as whining to his parents about it being so unfair. He has a whiny voice, like Ed Miliband has, and coupled with his whole schtik being how nasty the govt and Boris are, it seems a bit "poor me"
Don't know about his eyebrows - he looks like a Teddy Boy who likes a beer to me, but Boris is no pin up either, so it doesn't really affect things
A deathly dull teddy boy with a whiny voice who likes a beer. It's pouring out now.
No point opposing such naked prejudice with reason, I've learnt this, but just on the voice - it's not whiny, it's a touch flat & nasal, which is completely different.
And what about your man "Boris". How does HE come over to you? Eg when he stands up and says he's going to "get social care done". Does this sort of thing come across as dynamic and determined, or like he has no clue what he's talking about and operates on pure bullshit?
Ooh, prejudice!!!
I used to absolute despise Boris, based almost solely on a combination of class hatred and inability to see how anyone could fall for his bluster - I wouldn't say he was my man now, I voted for him with a heavy heart and a lot of sadness at finally going over to the dark side. But he was the only one offering to honour the referendum result. As I have got older I can appreciate that a bit of charisma and optimism goes a long way, and dreary righteousness is unappealing
Ok, you're being your best self with that answer, so I'll take it without disbelief or rancour. At least for now.
Let me fill you in on what a contemptible prick starmer is:
Starmer as DPP was effectively in charge of prosecutions before juries. He was the country's leading authority on Not Prejudicing Trials. Against that background, he held a press conference to announce that the admittedly appalling Chris Huhne would be prosecuted for lying his head off. Now, what is the likely effect of that press conference on a potential juror? They are going to think, if they pay any attention at all, There wouldn't have been a press conference about this on national TV if there was nothing in it. And what's the benefit of holding the press conference? It's to raise Kier's fucking political profile.
An unprincipled twat.
So despite all evidence to the contrary, he is actually a politician?
Yeah killer point. But if he can't behave honourably as a lawyer, what can we expect from him as a politician?
That is a wonderfully naive comment (albeit TSE will have me force fed pineapple pizza for saying that).
Bloody hell I managed to get a Pixel 6 Pro 256GB! No idea how, it just randomly went through, a few of my mates are annoyed because it's fully out of stock now.
What's the Pixel like? How's it compare to the Galaxy series?
I've got an S9 that only charges wirelessly as its USB-C adaptor has died, but other than that it still works great. Tempted to get a new phone soon just because the lack of cable charging is frustrating, but less tempted to stick with Samsung anymore since this isn't my first one to have that issue.
It's way, way better than anything Samsung. I've been using a temporary S20 while I've been waiting for the Pixel 6 series and it's a huge downgrade over the Pixel I had before in terms of usability. The 6 Pro looks incredible, happy I managed to get one. The main issue I have with Samsung is service replication, they just have all of their own bullshit they pollute their phones with. A pixel device doesn't have any of that shite. If you use the Samsung stuff then you might be stuck in their ecosystem, but most people don't.
I have a Samsung Watch so not sure if there's a Gear app for Pixel. That's the only big one for me. I currently use Samsung's pay app almost any time I pay for anything in-person but Google Pay would work just as well for that.
2-2 what a game so far.
Yeah the Samsung app will work fine on any Android phone and Google Pay is actually pretty handy these days. There's still November delivery black 6 Pro 128GB phones available, I'd grab one and then cancel if you change your mind.
Any site offering a better offer or are they all the same? I'm with Sky Mobile.
Corbyn really did bequeath Starmer a toxic legacy.
The problem is that Starmer isn't up to the job either.
Nonsense. I am not a Labour supporter, but Starmer has a great deal more credibility than the Clown that currently occupies No10. It is a long time before the next election. The big problem that Starmer has is not his own ability or credibility, it is that there is still a large part of the Labour Party that is even more ludicrous than many of those of the current government benches. History will judge how he does the long haul.
He reminds me a lot of Cameron: Massively underestimated by those in his own party that would rather have someone else, and derided by his opponents because they are simply too tribal or plain stupid to realise that he might just make it.
I agree with some of that: but Cameron always had a vision - even if you disagreed with it. Starmer seems unable to project any vision he may have without writing a WORN (*) magnum opus. Events haven't helped him, as the country and media are concentrating on bigger events.
Blair was a salesman. Cameron was also a salesman, to a lesser extent. Starmer doesn't appear to be one - and he needs to sell his vision for the country, to both the country and his own party.
(*) Write Once, Read Never. A common form of computer documentation.
"Blair was a salesman. Cameron was also a salesman, to a lesser extent. Starmer doesn't appear to be one - and he needs to sell his vision for the country, to both the country and his own party." - pretty much the whole reason I think Sir Keir won't be PM - plus the fact he is up against a very charismatic salesman
In a way, they appear polar opposites. Starmer may have a vision (I've no idea given he seems incapable of saying it); Boris doesn't have a vision beyond the end of his nose, but can sell the snot that dribbles out by the barrel-load.
We need a hideous scientific experiment where the two are merged together. Starson or Johnmer.
(I actually quite like Starson. Very sci-fi)
I saw a clip of Blair as LotO at PMQs the other day, and he seemed like he was bossing it vs Major (the famous one "I lead my party, he follows his", seems so horribly smug watching it now), and to an extent Cameron did with Brown, from what I can recall.
Miliband and Sir Keir always seem like they are earnestly whining about it being so unfair to me; maybe it's just the lack of gravitas in their voices. They seem like kids complaining about their parents, in comparison to the last couple of LotOs who became PM
No, he doesn't come over as whining to his parents about it being so unfair. The "wooden" critique is fair enough but you're just indulging yourself with this. Surprised you haven't as yet found fault with his eyebrows btw. Or have I missed that?
Comes over to me as whining to his parents about it being so unfair. He has a whiny voice, like Ed Miliband has, and coupled with his whole schtik being how nasty the govt and Boris are, it seems a bit "poor me"
Don't know about his eyebrows - he looks like a Teddy Boy who likes a beer to me, but Boris is no pin up either, so it doesn't really affect things
A deathly dull teddy boy with a whiny voice who likes a beer. It's pouring out now.
No point opposing such naked prejudice with reason, I've learnt this, but just on the voice - it's not whiny, it's a touch flat & nasal, which is completely different.
And what about your man "Boris". How does HE come over to you? Eg when he stands up and says he's going to "get social care done". Does this sort of thing come across as dynamic and determined, or like he has no clue what he's talking about and operates on pure bullshit?
Ooh, prejudice!!!
I used to absolute despise Boris, based almost solely on a combination of class hatred and inability to see how anyone could fall for his bluster - I wouldn't say he was my man now, I voted for him with a heavy heart and a lot of sadness at finally going over to the dark side. But he was the only one offering to honour the referendum result. As I have got older I can appreciate that a bit of charisma and optimism goes a long way, and dreary righteousness is unappealing
Ok, you're being your best self with that answer, so I'll take it without disbelief or rancour. At least for now.
Let me fill you in on what a contemptible prick starmer is:
Starmer as DPP was effectively in charge of prosecutions before juries. He was the country's leading authority on Not Prejudicing Trials. Against that background, he held a press conference to announce that the admittedly appalling Chris Huhne would be prosecuted for lying his head off. Now, what is the likely effect of that press conference on a potential juror? They are going to think, if they pay any attention at all, There wouldn't have been a press conference about this on national TV if there was nothing in it. And what's the benefit of holding the press conference? It's to raise Kier's fucking political profile.
An unprincipled twat.
"Why don't you just fuck off and join the Tories?"
Bloody hell I managed to get a Pixel 6 Pro 256GB! No idea how, it just randomly went through, a few of my mates are annoyed because it's fully out of stock now.
What's the Pixel like? How's it compare to the Galaxy series?
I've got an S9 that only charges wirelessly as its USB-C adaptor has died, but other than that it still works great. Tempted to get a new phone soon just because the lack of cable charging is frustrating, but less tempted to stick with Samsung anymore since this isn't my first one to have that issue.
It's way, way better than anything Samsung. I've been using a temporary S20 while I've been waiting for the Pixel 6 series and it's a huge downgrade over the Pixel I had before in terms of usability. The 6 Pro looks incredible, happy I managed to get one. The main issue I have with Samsung is service replication, they just have all of their own bullshit they pollute their phones with. A pixel device doesn't have any of that shite. If you use the Samsung stuff then you might be stuck in their ecosystem, but most people don't.
I have a Samsung Watch so not sure if there's a Gear app for Pixel. That's the only big one for me. I currently use Samsung's pay app almost any time I pay for anything in-person but Google Pay would work just as well for that.
2-2 what a game so far.
Yeah the Samsung app will work fine on any Android phone and Google Pay is actually pretty handy these days. There's still November delivery black 6 Pro 128GB phones available, I'd grab one and then cancel if you change your mind.
Any site offering a better offer or are they all the same? I'm with Sky Mobile.
Nah all the same price, with the Google store one you'll definitely get the headphones though which you can sell for ~£150-200. Unless you want a new contract, but I'm a firm believer in the buy your phone outright/SIM only setup.
Corbyn really did bequeath Starmer a toxic legacy.
The problem is that Starmer isn't up to the job either.
Nonsense. I am not a Labour supporter, but Starmer has a great deal more credibility than the Clown that currently occupies No10. It is a long time before the next election. The big problem that Starmer has is not his own ability or credibility, it is that there is still a large part of the Labour Party that is even more ludicrous than many of those of the current government benches. History will judge how he does the long haul.
He reminds me a lot of Cameron: Massively underestimated by those in his own party that would rather have someone else, and derided by his opponents because they are simply too tribal or plain stupid to realise that he might just make it.
I agree with some of that: but Cameron always had a vision - even if you disagreed with it. Starmer seems unable to project any vision he may have without writing a WORN (*) magnum opus. Events haven't helped him, as the country and media are concentrating on bigger events.
Blair was a salesman. Cameron was also a salesman, to a lesser extent. Starmer doesn't appear to be one - and he needs to sell his vision for the country, to both the country and his own party.
(*) Write Once, Read Never. A common form of computer documentation.
"Blair was a salesman. Cameron was also a salesman, to a lesser extent. Starmer doesn't appear to be one - and he needs to sell his vision for the country, to both the country and his own party." - pretty much the whole reason I think Sir Keir won't be PM - plus the fact he is up against a very charismatic salesman
In a way, they appear polar opposites. Starmer may have a vision (I've no idea given he seems incapable of saying it); Boris doesn't have a vision beyond the end of his nose, but can sell the snot that dribbles out by the barrel-load.
We need a hideous scientific experiment where the two are merged together. Starson or Johnmer.
(I actually quite like Starson. Very sci-fi)
I saw a clip of Blair as LotO at PMQs the other day, and he seemed like he was bossing it vs Major (the famous one "I lead my party, he follows his", seems so horribly smug watching it now), and to an extent Cameron did with Brown, from what I can recall.
Miliband and Sir Keir always seem like they are earnestly whining about it being so unfair to me; maybe it's just the lack of gravitas in their voices. They seem like kids complaining about their parents, in comparison to the last couple of LotOs who became PM
No, he doesn't come over as whining to his parents about it being so unfair. The "wooden" critique is fair enough but you're just indulging yourself with this. Surprised you haven't as yet found fault with his eyebrows btw. Or have I missed that?
Comes over to me as whining to his parents about it being so unfair. He has a whiny voice, like Ed Miliband has, and coupled with his whole schtik being how nasty the govt and Boris are, it seems a bit "poor me"
Don't know about his eyebrows - he looks like a Teddy Boy who likes a beer to me, but Boris is no pin up either, so it doesn't really affect things
A deathly dull teddy boy with a whiny voice who likes a beer. It's pouring out now.
No point opposing such naked prejudice with reason, I've learnt this, but just on the voice - it's not whiny, it's a touch flat & nasal, which is completely different.
And what about your man "Boris". How does HE come over to you? Eg when he stands up and says he's going to "get social care done". Does this sort of thing come across as dynamic and determined, or like he has no clue what he's talking about and operates on pure bullshit?
Ooh, prejudice!!!
I used to absolute despise Boris, based almost solely on a combination of class hatred and inability to see how anyone could fall for his bluster - I wouldn't say he was my man now, I voted for him with a heavy heart and a lot of sadness at finally going over to the dark side. But he was the only one offering to honour the referendum result. As I have got older I can appreciate that a bit of charisma and optimism goes a long way, and dreary righteousness is unappealing
Ok, you're being your best self with that answer, so I'll take it without disbelief or rancour. At least for now.
Let me fill you in on what a contemptible prick starmer is:
Starmer as DPP was effectively in charge of prosecutions before juries. He was the country's leading authority on Not Prejudicing Trials. Against that background, he held a press conference to announce that the admittedly appalling Chris Huhne would be prosecuted for lying his head off. Now, what is the likely effect of that press conference on a potential juror? They are going to think, if they pay any attention at all, There wouldn't have been a press conference about this on national TV if there was nothing in it. And what's the benefit of holding the press conference? It's to raise Kier's fucking political profile.
An unprincipled twat.
So despite all evidence to the contrary, he is actually a politician?
Yeah killer point. But if he can't behave honourably as a lawyer, what can we expect from him as a politician?
That is a wonderfully naive comment (albeit TSE will have me force fed pineapple pizza for saying that).
Again, killer point, but I am a former solicitor too, and the underlying rule is: you don't do this shit while anyone is watching. And certainly not on prime time TV.
Corbyn really did bequeath Starmer a toxic legacy.
The problem is that Starmer isn't up to the job either.
Nonsense. I am not a Labour supporter, but Starmer has a great deal more credibility than the Clown that currently occupies No10. It is a long time before the next election. The big problem that Starmer has is not his own ability or credibility, it is that there is still a large part of the Labour Party that is even more ludicrous than many of those of the current government benches. History will judge how he does the long haul.
He reminds me a lot of Cameron: Massively underestimated by those in his own party that would rather have someone else, and derided by his opponents because they are simply too tribal or plain stupid to realise that he might just make it.
I agree with some of that: but Cameron always had a vision - even if you disagreed with it. Starmer seems unable to project any vision he may have without writing a WORN (*) magnum opus. Events haven't helped him, as the country and media are concentrating on bigger events.
Blair was a salesman. Cameron was also a salesman, to a lesser extent. Starmer doesn't appear to be one - and he needs to sell his vision for the country, to both the country and his own party.
(*) Write Once, Read Never. A common form of computer documentation.
"Blair was a salesman. Cameron was also a salesman, to a lesser extent. Starmer doesn't appear to be one - and he needs to sell his vision for the country, to both the country and his own party." - pretty much the whole reason I think Sir Keir won't be PM - plus the fact he is up against a very charismatic salesman
In a way, they appear polar opposites. Starmer may have a vision (I've no idea given he seems incapable of saying it); Boris doesn't have a vision beyond the end of his nose, but can sell the snot that dribbles out by the barrel-load.
We need a hideous scientific experiment where the two are merged together. Starson or Johnmer.
(I actually quite like Starson. Very sci-fi)
I saw a clip of Blair as LotO at PMQs the other day, and he seemed like he was bossing it vs Major (the famous one "I lead my party, he follows his", seems so horribly smug watching it now), and to an extent Cameron did with Brown, from what I can recall.
Miliband and Sir Keir always seem like they are earnestly whining about it being so unfair to me; maybe it's just the lack of gravitas in their voices. They seem like kids complaining about their parents, in comparison to the last couple of LotOs who became PM
No, he doesn't come over as whining to his parents about it being so unfair. The "wooden" critique is fair enough but you're just indulging yourself with this. Surprised you haven't as yet found fault with his eyebrows btw. Or have I missed that?
Comes over to me as whining to his parents about it being so unfair. He has a whiny voice, like Ed Miliband has, and coupled with his whole schtik being how nasty the govt and Boris are, it seems a bit "poor me"
Don't know about his eyebrows - he looks like a Teddy Boy who likes a beer to me, but Boris is no pin up either, so it doesn't really affect things
A deathly dull teddy boy with a whiny voice who likes a beer. It's pouring out now.
No point opposing such naked prejudice with reason, I've learnt this, but just on the voice - it's not whiny, it's a touch flat & nasal, which is completely different.
And what about your man "Boris". How does HE come over to you? Eg when he stands up and says he's going to "get social care done". Does this sort of thing come across as dynamic and determined, or like he has no clue what he's talking about and operates on pure bullshit?
Ooh, prejudice!!!
I used to absolute despise Boris, based almost solely on a combination of class hatred and inability to see how anyone could fall for his bluster - I wouldn't say he was my man now, I voted for him with a heavy heart and a lot of sadness at finally going over to the dark side. But he was the only one offering to honour the referendum result. As I have got older I can appreciate that a bit of charisma and optimism goes a long way, and dreary righteousness is unappealing
Ok, you're being your best self with that answer, so I'll take it without disbelief or rancour. At least for now.
Let me fill you in on what a contemptible prick starmer is:
Starmer as DPP was effectively in charge of prosecutions before juries. He was the country's leading authority on Not Prejudicing Trials. Against that background, he held a press conference to announce that the admittedly appalling Chris Huhne would be prosecuted for lying his head off. Now, what is the likely effect of that press conference on a potential juror? They are going to think, if they pay any attention at all, There wouldn't have been a press conference about this on national TV if there was nothing in it. And what's the benefit of holding the press conference? It's to raise Kier's fucking political profile.
An unprincipled twat.
So despite all evidence to the contrary, he is actually a politician?
Yeah killer point. But if he can't behave honourably as a lawyer, what can we expect from him as a politician?
That is a wonderfully naive comment (albeit TSE will have me force fed pineapple pizza for saying that).
Again, killer point, but I am a former solicitor too, and the underlying rule is: you don't do this shit while anyone is watching. And certainly not on prime time TV.
If I am making so many killer points, should I change my id to Killer Whales?
Corbyn really did bequeath Starmer a toxic legacy.
The problem is that Starmer isn't up to the job either.
Nonsense. I am not a Labour supporter, but Starmer has a great deal more credibility than the Clown that currently occupies No10. It is a long time before the next election. The big problem that Starmer has is not his own ability or credibility, it is that there is still a large part of the Labour Party that is even more ludicrous than many of those of the current government benches. History will judge how he does the long haul.
He reminds me a lot of Cameron: Massively underestimated by those in his own party that would rather have someone else, and derided by his opponents because they are simply too tribal or plain stupid to realise that he might just make it.
I agree with some of that: but Cameron always had a vision - even if you disagreed with it. Starmer seems unable to project any vision he may have without writing a WORN (*) magnum opus. Events haven't helped him, as the country and media are concentrating on bigger events.
Blair was a salesman. Cameron was also a salesman, to a lesser extent. Starmer doesn't appear to be one - and he needs to sell his vision for the country, to both the country and his own party.
(*) Write Once, Read Never. A common form of computer documentation.
"Blair was a salesman. Cameron was also a salesman, to a lesser extent. Starmer doesn't appear to be one - and he needs to sell his vision for the country, to both the country and his own party." - pretty much the whole reason I think Sir Keir won't be PM - plus the fact he is up against a very charismatic salesman
In a way, they appear polar opposites. Starmer may have a vision (I've no idea given he seems incapable of saying it); Boris doesn't have a vision beyond the end of his nose, but can sell the snot that dribbles out by the barrel-load.
We need a hideous scientific experiment where the two are merged together. Starson or Johnmer.
(I actually quite like Starson. Very sci-fi)
I saw a clip of Blair as LotO at PMQs the other day, and he seemed like he was bossing it vs Major (the famous one "I lead my party, he follows his", seems so horribly smug watching it now), and to an extent Cameron did with Brown, from what I can recall.
Miliband and Sir Keir always seem like they are earnestly whining about it being so unfair to me; maybe it's just the lack of gravitas in their voices. They seem like kids complaining about their parents, in comparison to the last couple of LotOs who became PM
No, he doesn't come over as whining to his parents about it being so unfair. The "wooden" critique is fair enough but you're just indulging yourself with this. Surprised you haven't as yet found fault with his eyebrows btw. Or have I missed that?
Comes over to me as whining to his parents about it being so unfair. He has a whiny voice, like Ed Miliband has, and coupled with his whole schtik being how nasty the govt and Boris are, it seems a bit "poor me"
Don't know about his eyebrows - he looks like a Teddy Boy who likes a beer to me, but Boris is no pin up either, so it doesn't really affect things
A deathly dull teddy boy with a whiny voice who likes a beer. It's pouring out now.
No point opposing such naked prejudice with reason, I've learnt this, but just on the voice - it's not whiny, it's a touch flat & nasal, which is completely different.
And what about your man "Boris". How does HE come over to you? Eg when he stands up and says he's going to "get social care done". Does this sort of thing come across as dynamic and determined, or like he has no clue what he's talking about and operates on pure bullshit?
Ooh, prejudice!!!
I used to absolute despise Boris, based almost solely on a combination of class hatred and inability to see how anyone could fall for his bluster - I wouldn't say he was my man now, I voted for him with a heavy heart and a lot of sadness at finally going over to the dark side. But he was the only one offering to honour the referendum result. As I have got older I can appreciate that a bit of charisma and optimism goes a long way, and dreary righteousness is unappealing
Ok, you're being your best self with that answer, so I'll take it without disbelief or rancour. At least for now.
Let me fill you in on what a contemptible prick starmer is:
Starmer as DPP was effectively in charge of prosecutions before juries. He was the country's leading authority on Not Prejudicing Trials. Against that background, he held a press conference to announce that the admittedly appalling Chris Huhne would be prosecuted for lying his head off. Now, what is the likely effect of that press conference on a potential juror? They are going to think, if they pay any attention at all, There wouldn't have been a press conference about this on national TV if there was nothing in it. And what's the benefit of holding the press conference? It's to raise Kier's fucking political profile.
An unprincipled twat.
So despite all evidence to the contrary, he is actually a politician?
Yeah killer point. But if he can't behave honourably as a lawyer, what can we expect from him as a politician?
That is a wonderfully naive comment (albeit TSE will have me force fed pineapple pizza for saying that).
I find dishonourable journalists even more dangerous than dishonourable lawyers. The power without responsibility of the fourth estate and all that. Now do we know any dishonourable journalists who had political aspirations?
Corbyn really did bequeath Starmer a toxic legacy.
The problem is that Starmer isn't up to the job either.
Nonsense. I am not a Labour supporter, but Starmer has a great deal more credibility than the Clown that currently occupies No10. It is a long time before the next election. The big problem that Starmer has is not his own ability or credibility, it is that there is still a large part of the Labour Party that is even more ludicrous than many of those of the current government benches. History will judge how he does the long haul.
He reminds me a lot of Cameron: Massively underestimated by those in his own party that would rather have someone else, and derided by his opponents because they are simply too tribal or plain stupid to realise that he might just make it.
I agree with some of that: but Cameron always had a vision - even if you disagreed with it. Starmer seems unable to project any vision he may have without writing a WORN (*) magnum opus. Events haven't helped him, as the country and media are concentrating on bigger events.
Blair was a salesman. Cameron was also a salesman, to a lesser extent. Starmer doesn't appear to be one - and he needs to sell his vision for the country, to both the country and his own party.
(*) Write Once, Read Never. A common form of computer documentation.
"Blair was a salesman. Cameron was also a salesman, to a lesser extent. Starmer doesn't appear to be one - and he needs to sell his vision for the country, to both the country and his own party." - pretty much the whole reason I think Sir Keir won't be PM - plus the fact he is up against a very charismatic salesman
In a way, they appear polar opposites. Starmer may have a vision (I've no idea given he seems incapable of saying it); Boris doesn't have a vision beyond the end of his nose, but can sell the snot that dribbles out by the barrel-load.
We need a hideous scientific experiment where the two are merged together. Starson or Johnmer.
(I actually quite like Starson. Very sci-fi)
I saw a clip of Blair as LotO at PMQs the other day, and he seemed like he was bossing it vs Major (the famous one "I lead my party, he follows his", seems so horribly smug watching it now), and to an extent Cameron did with Brown, from what I can recall.
Miliband and Sir Keir always seem like they are earnestly whining about it being so unfair to me; maybe it's just the lack of gravitas in their voices. They seem like kids complaining about their parents, in comparison to the last couple of LotOs who became PM
No, he doesn't come over as whining to his parents about it being so unfair. The "wooden" critique is fair enough but you're just indulging yourself with this. Surprised you haven't as yet found fault with his eyebrows btw. Or have I missed that?
Comes over to me as whining to his parents about it being so unfair. He has a whiny voice, like Ed Miliband has, and coupled with his whole schtik being how nasty the govt and Boris are, it seems a bit "poor me"
Don't know about his eyebrows - he looks like a Teddy Boy who likes a beer to me, but Boris is no pin up either, so it doesn't really affect things
A deathly dull teddy boy with a whiny voice who likes a beer. It's pouring out now.
No point opposing such naked prejudice with reason, I've learnt this, but just on the voice - it's not whiny, it's a touch flat & nasal, which is completely different.
And what about your man "Boris". How does HE come over to you? Eg when he stands up and says he's going to "get social care done". Does this sort of thing come across as dynamic and determined, or like he has no clue what he's talking about and operates on pure bullshit?
Ooh, prejudice!!!
I used to absolute despise Boris, based almost solely on a combination of class hatred and inability to see how anyone could fall for his bluster - I wouldn't say he was my man now, I voted for him with a heavy heart and a lot of sadness at finally going over to the dark side. But he was the only one offering to honour the referendum result. As I have got older I can appreciate that a bit of charisma and optimism goes a long way, and dreary righteousness is unappealing
Ok, you're being your best self with that answer, so I'll take it without disbelief or rancour. At least for now.
Let me fill you in on what a contemptible prick starmer is:
Starmer as DPP was effectively in charge of prosecutions before juries. He was the country's leading authority on Not Prejudicing Trials. Against that background, he held a press conference to announce that the admittedly appalling Chris Huhne would be prosecuted for lying his head off. Now, what is the likely effect of that press conference on a potential juror? They are going to think, if they pay any attention at all, There wouldn't have been a press conference about this on national TV if there was nothing in it. And what's the benefit of holding the press conference? It's to raise Kier's fucking political profile.
An unprincipled twat.
So despite all evidence to the contrary, he is actually a politician?
Yeah killer point. But if he can't behave honourably as a lawyer, what can we expect from him as a politician?
"You know, Ishmael, I don't know which species is worse. You don't see lawyers fucking each other over for a goddam percentage!"
Corbyn really did bequeath Starmer a toxic legacy.
The problem is that Starmer isn't up to the job either.
Nonsense. I am not a Labour supporter, but Starmer has a great deal more credibility than the Clown that currently occupies No10. It is a long time before the next election. The big problem that Starmer has is not his own ability or credibility, it is that there is still a large part of the Labour Party that is even more ludicrous than many of those of the current government benches. History will judge how he does the long haul.
He reminds me a lot of Cameron: Massively underestimated by those in his own party that would rather have someone else, and derided by his opponents because they are simply too tribal or plain stupid to realise that he might just make it.
I agree with some of that: but Cameron always had a vision - even if you disagreed with it. Starmer seems unable to project any vision he may have without writing a WORN (*) magnum opus. Events haven't helped him, as the country and media are concentrating on bigger events.
Blair was a salesman. Cameron was also a salesman, to a lesser extent. Starmer doesn't appear to be one - and he needs to sell his vision for the country, to both the country and his own party.
(*) Write Once, Read Never. A common form of computer documentation.
"Blair was a salesman. Cameron was also a salesman, to a lesser extent. Starmer doesn't appear to be one - and he needs to sell his vision for the country, to both the country and his own party." - pretty much the whole reason I think Sir Keir won't be PM - plus the fact he is up against a very charismatic salesman
In a way, they appear polar opposites. Starmer may have a vision (I've no idea given he seems incapable of saying it); Boris doesn't have a vision beyond the end of his nose, but can sell the snot that dribbles out by the barrel-load.
We need a hideous scientific experiment where the two are merged together. Starson or Johnmer.
(I actually quite like Starson. Very sci-fi)
I saw a clip of Blair as LotO at PMQs the other day, and he seemed like he was bossing it vs Major (the famous one "I lead my party, he follows his", seems so horribly smug watching it now), and to an extent Cameron did with Brown, from what I can recall.
Miliband and Sir Keir always seem like they are earnestly whining about it being so unfair to me; maybe it's just the lack of gravitas in their voices. They seem like kids complaining about their parents, in comparison to the last couple of LotOs who became PM
No, he doesn't come over as whining to his parents about it being so unfair. The "wooden" critique is fair enough but you're just indulging yourself with this. Surprised you haven't as yet found fault with his eyebrows btw. Or have I missed that?
Comes over to me as whining to his parents about it being so unfair. He has a whiny voice, like Ed Miliband has, and coupled with his whole schtik being how nasty the govt and Boris are, it seems a bit "poor me"
Don't know about his eyebrows - he looks like a Teddy Boy who likes a beer to me, but Boris is no pin up either, so it doesn't really affect things
A deathly dull teddy boy with a whiny voice who likes a beer. It's pouring out now.
No point opposing such naked prejudice with reason, I've learnt this, but just on the voice - it's not whiny, it's a touch flat & nasal, which is completely different.
And what about your man "Boris". How does HE come over to you? Eg when he stands up and says he's going to "get social care done". Does this sort of thing come across as dynamic and determined, or like he has no clue what he's talking about and operates on pure bullshit?
Ooh, prejudice!!!
I used to absolute despise Boris, based almost solely on a combination of class hatred and inability to see how anyone could fall for his bluster - I wouldn't say he was my man now, I voted for him with a heavy heart and a lot of sadness at finally going over to the dark side. But he was the only one offering to honour the referendum result. As I have got older I can appreciate that a bit of charisma and optimism goes a long way, and dreary righteousness is unappealing
Ok, you're being your best self with that answer, so I'll take it without disbelief or rancour. At least for now.
Let me fill you in on what a contemptible prick starmer is:
Starmer as DPP was effectively in charge of prosecutions before juries. He was the country's leading authority on Not Prejudicing Trials. Against that background, he held a press conference to announce that the admittedly appalling Chris Huhne would be prosecuted for lying his head off. Now, what is the likely effect of that press conference on a potential juror? They are going to think, if they pay any attention at all, There wouldn't have been a press conference about this on national TV if there was nothing in it. And what's the benefit of holding the press conference? It's to raise Kier's fucking political profile.
An unprincipled twat.
So despite all evidence to the contrary, he is actually a politician?
Yeah killer point. But if he can't behave honourably as a lawyer, what can we expect from him as a politician?
We already know that.
He stayed in Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet and said he'd serve in a real Cabinet and support Corbyn as PM even after all the antisemitism came up.
He is the worst sort of self-serving careerist.
He also talks of wanting to give people from the same background as him the chances he got - He went to a Grammar School, which he wont reintroduce as far as I know, which turned into a private, fee paying school whilst he was there. So either his parents paid, in which case poor kids wont get that chance or, as some claim, the state paid for him to go private, in which case, is his government going to pay for bright poor kids to go to private school?
The coronavirus numbers this evening aren't inspiring - yet we can't go back. For too many people and you see it often on here, the very concept of a return to restrictions is anathema.
The prevailing ethos now is we "live with" the virus which I suppose we could have done in March 2020. We have nearly 80% of those aged 12 and above doubly vaccinated. In Newham, I estimate 55,000 people over 12 are not yet doubly vaccinated so there's still plenty of fuel for the virus.
I confess I'm starting to get concerned about the pace of the booster rollout. @MaxPB was waxing lyrical about getting 2.5 million vaccinated per week - I see little sign of that currently. Mrs Stodge and I are approaching five months since our second vaccination and I'm getting concerned the immunity the second vaccination provided will be wearing off in a few weeks.
Unless we get the booster programme moving, we'll be back in a bad position with weakly protected or unprotected people mixing indoors as we move into late autumn and winter.
Much of Europe is moving faster on both kids and boosters; if we are not careful the position last spring will reverse, and even PB Tories will have to stop going on about our vaccination triumph…
It’s too late, isn’t it? We’re behind Western Europe now.
I say this provocatively in the hopes someone will correct me.
It’s in Dr Campbell’s latest video. Our natural immunity is lower because people were vaccinated longer ago - hence we are to an extent victims of our early success - exacerbated by not much having happened since. Even older Americans are often boosted up, now.
If that were the case the data would show an increase in infection amongst older people. That's not the case at all.
We are seeing an increase in infection in older people. Not off the charts, but an increase nonetheless.
Corbyn really did bequeath Starmer a toxic legacy.
The problem is that Starmer isn't up to the job either.
Nonsense. I am not a Labour supporter, but Starmer has a great deal more credibility than the Clown that currently occupies No10. It is a long time before the next election. The big problem that Starmer has is not his own ability or credibility, it is that there is still a large part of the Labour Party that is even more ludicrous than many of those of the current government benches. History will judge how he does the long haul.
He reminds me a lot of Cameron: Massively underestimated by those in his own party that would rather have someone else, and derided by his opponents because they are simply too tribal or plain stupid to realise that he might just make it.
I agree with some of that: but Cameron always had a vision - even if you disagreed with it. Starmer seems unable to project any vision he may have without writing a WORN (*) magnum opus. Events haven't helped him, as the country and media are concentrating on bigger events.
Blair was a salesman. Cameron was also a salesman, to a lesser extent. Starmer doesn't appear to be one - and he needs to sell his vision for the country, to both the country and his own party.
(*) Write Once, Read Never. A common form of computer documentation.
"Blair was a salesman. Cameron was also a salesman, to a lesser extent. Starmer doesn't appear to be one - and he needs to sell his vision for the country, to both the country and his own party." - pretty much the whole reason I think Sir Keir won't be PM - plus the fact he is up against a very charismatic salesman
In a way, they appear polar opposites. Starmer may have a vision (I've no idea given he seems incapable of saying it); Boris doesn't have a vision beyond the end of his nose, but can sell the snot that dribbles out by the barrel-load.
We need a hideous scientific experiment where the two are merged together. Starson or Johnmer.
(I actually quite like Starson. Very sci-fi)
I saw a clip of Blair as LotO at PMQs the other day, and he seemed like he was bossing it vs Major (the famous one "I lead my party, he follows his", seems so horribly smug watching it now), and to an extent Cameron did with Brown, from what I can recall.
Miliband and Sir Keir always seem like they are earnestly whining about it being so unfair to me; maybe it's just the lack of gravitas in their voices. They seem like kids complaining about their parents, in comparison to the last couple of LotOs who became PM
No, he doesn't come over as whining to his parents about it being so unfair. The "wooden" critique is fair enough but you're just indulging yourself with this. Surprised you haven't as yet found fault with his eyebrows btw. Or have I missed that?
Comes over to me as whining to his parents about it being so unfair. He has a whiny voice, like Ed Miliband has, and coupled with his whole schtik being how nasty the govt and Boris are, it seems a bit "poor me"
Don't know about his eyebrows - he looks like a Teddy Boy who likes a beer to me, but Boris is no pin up either, so it doesn't really affect things
A deathly dull teddy boy with a whiny voice who likes a beer. It's pouring out now.
No point opposing such naked prejudice with reason, I've learnt this, but just on the voice - it's not whiny, it's a touch flat & nasal, which is completely different.
And what about your man "Boris". How does HE come over to you? Eg when he stands up and says he's going to "get social care done". Does this sort of thing come across as dynamic and determined, or like he has no clue what he's talking about and operates on pure bullshit?
Ooh, prejudice!!!
I used to absolute despise Boris, based almost solely on a combination of class hatred and inability to see how anyone could fall for his bluster - I wouldn't say he was my man now, I voted for him with a heavy heart and a lot of sadness at finally going over to the dark side. But he was the only one offering to honour the referendum result. As I have got older I can appreciate that a bit of charisma and optimism goes a long way, and dreary righteousness is unappealing
Ok, you're being your best self with that answer, so I'll take it without disbelief or rancour. At least for now.
Let me fill you in on what a contemptible prick starmer is:
Starmer as DPP was effectively in charge of prosecutions before juries. He was the country's leading authority on Not Prejudicing Trials. Against that background, he held a press conference to announce that the admittedly appalling Chris Huhne would be prosecuted for lying his head off. Now, what is the likely effect of that press conference on a potential juror? They are going to think, if they pay any attention at all, There wouldn't have been a press conference about this on national TV if there was nothing in it. And what's the benefit of holding the press conference? It's to raise Kier's fucking political profile.
An unprincipled twat.
So despite all evidence to the contrary, he is actually a politician?
Yeah killer point. But if he can't behave honourably as a lawyer, what can we expect from him as a politician?
"You know, Ishmael, I don't know which species is worse. You don't see lawyers fucking each other over for a goddam percentage!"
Corbyn really did bequeath Starmer a toxic legacy.
The problem is that Starmer isn't up to the job either.
Nonsense. I am not a Labour supporter, but Starmer has a great deal more credibility than the Clown that currently occupies No10. It is a long time before the next election. The big problem that Starmer has is not his own ability or credibility, it is that there is still a large part of the Labour Party that is even more ludicrous than many of those of the current government benches. History will judge how he does the long haul.
He reminds me a lot of Cameron: Massively underestimated by those in his own party that would rather have someone else, and derided by his opponents because they are simply too tribal or plain stupid to realise that he might just make it.
I agree with some of that: but Cameron always had a vision - even if you disagreed with it. Starmer seems unable to project any vision he may have without writing a WORN (*) magnum opus. Events haven't helped him, as the country and media are concentrating on bigger events.
Blair was a salesman. Cameron was also a salesman, to a lesser extent. Starmer doesn't appear to be one - and he needs to sell his vision for the country, to both the country and his own party.
(*) Write Once, Read Never. A common form of computer documentation.
"Blair was a salesman. Cameron was also a salesman, to a lesser extent. Starmer doesn't appear to be one - and he needs to sell his vision for the country, to both the country and his own party." - pretty much the whole reason I think Sir Keir won't be PM - plus the fact he is up against a very charismatic salesman
In a way, they appear polar opposites. Starmer may have a vision (I've no idea given he seems incapable of saying it); Boris doesn't have a vision beyond the end of his nose, but can sell the snot that dribbles out by the barrel-load.
We need a hideous scientific experiment where the two are merged together. Starson or Johnmer.
(I actually quite like Starson. Very sci-fi)
I saw a clip of Blair as LotO at PMQs the other day, and he seemed like he was bossing it vs Major (the famous one "I lead my party, he follows his", seems so horribly smug watching it now), and to an extent Cameron did with Brown, from what I can recall.
Miliband and Sir Keir always seem like they are earnestly whining about it being so unfair to me; maybe it's just the lack of gravitas in their voices. They seem like kids complaining about their parents, in comparison to the last couple of LotOs who became PM
No, he doesn't come over as whining to his parents about it being so unfair. The "wooden" critique is fair enough but you're just indulging yourself with this. Surprised you haven't as yet found fault with his eyebrows btw. Or have I missed that?
Comes over to me as whining to his parents about it being so unfair. He has a whiny voice, like Ed Miliband has, and coupled with his whole schtik being how nasty the govt and Boris are, it seems a bit "poor me"
Don't know about his eyebrows - he looks like a Teddy Boy who likes a beer to me, but Boris is no pin up either, so it doesn't really affect things
A deathly dull teddy boy with a whiny voice who likes a beer. It's pouring out now.
No point opposing such naked prejudice with reason, I've learnt this, but just on the voice - it's not whiny, it's a touch flat & nasal, which is completely different.
And what about your man "Boris". How does HE come over to you? Eg when he stands up and says he's going to "get social care done". Does this sort of thing come across as dynamic and determined, or like he has no clue what he's talking about and operates on pure bullshit?
Ooh, prejudice!!!
I used to absolute despise Boris, based almost solely on a combination of class hatred and inability to see how anyone could fall for his bluster - I wouldn't say he was my man now, I voted for him with a heavy heart and a lot of sadness at finally going over to the dark side. But he was the only one offering to honour the referendum result. As I have got older I can appreciate that a bit of charisma and optimism goes a long way, and dreary righteousness is unappealing
Ok, you're being your best self with that answer, so I'll take it without disbelief or rancour. At least for now.
Let me fill you in on what a contemptible prick starmer is:
Starmer as DPP was effectively in charge of prosecutions before juries. He was the country's leading authority on Not Prejudicing Trials. Against that background, he held a press conference to announce that the admittedly appalling Chris Huhne would be prosecuted for lying his head off. Now, what is the likely effect of that press conference on a potential juror? They are going to think, if they pay any attention at all, There wouldn't have been a press conference about this on national TV if there was nothing in it. And what's the benefit of holding the press conference? It's to raise Kier's fucking political profile.
An unprincipled twat.
So despite all evidence to the contrary, he is actually a politician?
Yeah killer point. But if he can't behave honourably as a lawyer, what can we expect from him as a politician?
We already know that.
He stayed in Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet and said he'd serve in a real Cabinet and support Corbyn as PM even after all the antisemitism came up.
He is the worst sort of self-serving careerist.
He also talks of wanting to give people from the same background as him the chances he got - He went to a Grammar School, which he wont reintroduce as far as I know, which turned into a private, fee paying school whilst he was there. So either his parents paid, in which case poor kids wont get that chance or, as some claim, the state paid for him to go private, in which case, is his government going to pay for bright poor kids to go to private school?
Surely, in the GE campaign, a journalist will ask him outright "Who paid for you to go to Private School?"
Corbyn really did bequeath Starmer a toxic legacy.
The problem is that Starmer isn't up to the job either.
Nonsense. I am not a Labour supporter, but Starmer has a great deal more credibility than the Clown that currently occupies No10. It is a long time before the next election. The big problem that Starmer has is not his own ability or credibility, it is that there is still a large part of the Labour Party that is even more ludicrous than many of those of the current government benches. History will judge how he does the long haul.
He reminds me a lot of Cameron: Massively underestimated by those in his own party that would rather have someone else, and derided by his opponents because they are simply too tribal or plain stupid to realise that he might just make it.
I agree with some of that: but Cameron always had a vision - even if you disagreed with it. Starmer seems unable to project any vision he may have without writing a WORN (*) magnum opus. Events haven't helped him, as the country and media are concentrating on bigger events.
Blair was a salesman. Cameron was also a salesman, to a lesser extent. Starmer doesn't appear to be one - and he needs to sell his vision for the country, to both the country and his own party.
(*) Write Once, Read Never. A common form of computer documentation.
"Blair was a salesman. Cameron was also a salesman, to a lesser extent. Starmer doesn't appear to be one - and he needs to sell his vision for the country, to both the country and his own party." - pretty much the whole reason I think Sir Keir won't be PM - plus the fact he is up against a very charismatic salesman
In a way, they appear polar opposites. Starmer may have a vision (I've no idea given he seems incapable of saying it); Boris doesn't have a vision beyond the end of his nose, but can sell the snot that dribbles out by the barrel-load.
We need a hideous scientific experiment where the two are merged together. Starson or Johnmer.
(I actually quite like Starson. Very sci-fi)
I saw a clip of Blair as LotO at PMQs the other day, and he seemed like he was bossing it vs Major (the famous one "I lead my party, he follows his", seems so horribly smug watching it now), and to an extent Cameron did with Brown, from what I can recall.
Miliband and Sir Keir always seem like they are earnestly whining about it being so unfair to me; maybe it's just the lack of gravitas in their voices. They seem like kids complaining about their parents, in comparison to the last couple of LotOs who became PM
No, he doesn't come over as whining to his parents about it being so unfair. The "wooden" critique is fair enough but you're just indulging yourself with this. Surprised you haven't as yet found fault with his eyebrows btw. Or have I missed that?
Comes over to me as whining to his parents about it being so unfair. He has a whiny voice, like Ed Miliband has, and coupled with his whole schtik being how nasty the govt and Boris are, it seems a bit "poor me"
Don't know about his eyebrows - he looks like a Teddy Boy who likes a beer to me, but Boris is no pin up either, so it doesn't really affect things
A deathly dull teddy boy with a whiny voice who likes a beer. It's pouring out now.
No point opposing such naked prejudice with reason, I've learnt this, but just on the voice - it's not whiny, it's a touch flat & nasal, which is completely different.
And what about your man "Boris". How does HE come over to you? Eg when he stands up and says he's going to "get social care done". Does this sort of thing come across as dynamic and determined, or like he has no clue what he's talking about and operates on pure bullshit?
Ooh, prejudice!!!
I used to absolute despise Boris, based almost solely on a combination of class hatred and inability to see how anyone could fall for his bluster - I wouldn't say he was my man now, I voted for him with a heavy heart and a lot of sadness at finally going over to the dark side. But he was the only one offering to honour the referendum result. As I have got older I can appreciate that a bit of charisma and optimism goes a long way, and dreary righteousness is unappealing
Ok, you're being your best self with that answer, so I'll take it without disbelief or rancour. At least for now.
Let me fill you in on what a contemptible prick starmer is:
Starmer as DPP was effectively in charge of prosecutions before juries. He was the country's leading authority on Not Prejudicing Trials. Against that background, he held a press conference to announce that the admittedly appalling Chris Huhne would be prosecuted for lying his head off. Now, what is the likely effect of that press conference on a potential juror? They are going to think, if they pay any attention at all, There wouldn't have been a press conference about this on national TV if there was nothing in it. And what's the benefit of holding the press conference? It's to raise Kier's fucking political profile.
An unprincipled twat.
Not my field at all. Was that a very unusual thing to do then? A prosecutor announcing a prosecution?
Corbyn really did bequeath Starmer a toxic legacy.
The problem is that Starmer isn't up to the job either.
Nonsense. I am not a Labour supporter, but Starmer has a great deal more credibility than the Clown that currently occupies No10. It is a long time before the next election. The big problem that Starmer has is not his own ability or credibility, it is that there is still a large part of the Labour Party that is even more ludicrous than many of those of the current government benches. History will judge how he does the long haul.
He reminds me a lot of Cameron: Massively underestimated by those in his own party that would rather have someone else, and derided by his opponents because they are simply too tribal or plain stupid to realise that he might just make it.
I agree with some of that: but Cameron always had a vision - even if you disagreed with it. Starmer seems unable to project any vision he may have without writing a WORN (*) magnum opus. Events haven't helped him, as the country and media are concentrating on bigger events.
Blair was a salesman. Cameron was also a salesman, to a lesser extent. Starmer doesn't appear to be one - and he needs to sell his vision for the country, to both the country and his own party.
(*) Write Once, Read Never. A common form of computer documentation.
"Blair was a salesman. Cameron was also a salesman, to a lesser extent. Starmer doesn't appear to be one - and he needs to sell his vision for the country, to both the country and his own party." - pretty much the whole reason I think Sir Keir won't be PM - plus the fact he is up against a very charismatic salesman
In a way, they appear polar opposites. Starmer may have a vision (I've no idea given he seems incapable of saying it); Boris doesn't have a vision beyond the end of his nose, but can sell the snot that dribbles out by the barrel-load.
We need a hideous scientific experiment where the two are merged together. Starson or Johnmer.
(I actually quite like Starson. Very sci-fi)
I saw a clip of Blair as LotO at PMQs the other day, and he seemed like he was bossing it vs Major (the famous one "I lead my party, he follows his", seems so horribly smug watching it now), and to an extent Cameron did with Brown, from what I can recall.
Miliband and Sir Keir always seem like they are earnestly whining about it being so unfair to me; maybe it's just the lack of gravitas in their voices. They seem like kids complaining about their parents, in comparison to the last couple of LotOs who became PM
No, he doesn't come over as whining to his parents about it being so unfair. The "wooden" critique is fair enough but you're just indulging yourself with this. Surprised you haven't as yet found fault with his eyebrows btw. Or have I missed that?
Comes over to me as whining to his parents about it being so unfair. He has a whiny voice, like Ed Miliband has, and coupled with his whole schtik being how nasty the govt and Boris are, it seems a bit "poor me"
Don't know about his eyebrows - he looks like a Teddy Boy who likes a beer to me, but Boris is no pin up either, so it doesn't really affect things
A deathly dull teddy boy with a whiny voice who likes a beer. It's pouring out now.
No point opposing such naked prejudice with reason, I've learnt this, but just on the voice - it's not whiny, it's a touch flat & nasal, which is completely different.
And what about your man "Boris". How does HE come over to you? Eg when he stands up and says he's going to "get social care done". Does this sort of thing come across as dynamic and determined, or like he has no clue what he's talking about and operates on pure bullshit?
Ooh, prejudice!!!
I used to absolute despise Boris, based almost solely on a combination of class hatred and inability to see how anyone could fall for his bluster - I wouldn't say he was my man now, I voted for him with a heavy heart and a lot of sadness at finally going over to the dark side. But he was the only one offering to honour the referendum result. As I have got older I can appreciate that a bit of charisma and optimism goes a long way, and dreary righteousness is unappealing
Ok, you're being your best self with that answer, so I'll take it without disbelief or rancour. At least for now.
Let me fill you in on what a contemptible prick starmer is:
Starmer as DPP was effectively in charge of prosecutions before juries. He was the country's leading authority on Not Prejudicing Trials. Against that background, he held a press conference to announce that the admittedly appalling Chris Huhne would be prosecuted for lying his head off. Now, what is the likely effect of that press conference on a potential juror? They are going to think, if they pay any attention at all, There wouldn't have been a press conference about this on national TV if there was nothing in it. And what's the benefit of holding the press conference? It's to raise Kier's fucking political profile.
An unprincipled twat.
So despite all evidence to the contrary, he is actually a politician?
Yeah killer point. But if he can't behave honourably as a lawyer, what can we expect from him as a politician?
That is a wonderfully naive comment (albeit TSE will have me force fed pineapple pizza for saying that).
Again, killer point, but I am a former solicitor too, and the underlying rule is: you don't do this shit while anyone is watching. And certainly not on prime time TV.
If I am making so many killer points, should I change my id to Killer Whales?
The coronavirus numbers this evening aren't inspiring - yet we can't go back. For too many people and you see it often on here, the very concept of a return to restrictions is anathema.
The prevailing ethos now is we "live with" the virus which I suppose we could have done in March 2020. We have nearly 80% of those aged 12 and above doubly vaccinated. In Newham, I estimate 55,000 people over 12 are not yet doubly vaccinated so there's still plenty of fuel for the virus.
I confess I'm starting to get concerned about the pace of the booster rollout. @MaxPB was waxing lyrical about getting 2.5 million vaccinated per week - I see little sign of that currently. Mrs Stodge and I are approaching five months since our second vaccination and I'm getting concerned the immunity the second vaccination provided will be wearing off in a few weeks.
Unless we get the booster programme moving, we'll be back in a bad position with weakly protected or unprotected people mixing indoors as we move into late autumn and winter.
Much of Europe is moving faster on both kids and boosters; if we are not careful the position last spring will reverse, and even PB Tories will have to stop going on about our vaccination triumph…
It’s too late, isn’t it? We’re behind Western Europe now.
I say this provocatively in the hopes someone will correct me.
tl;dr
UK has a big waning immunity problem — bigger than Western Europe because of starting vax earlier — which is much more likely than masks to explain UK’s ongoing higher case & death rates https://t.co/8ofsYZjYR2
Potentially we're heading for fairly deep doohdooh and the "it's over" attitude isn't helping.
1000 deaths a week is 10% of all deaths, roughly. I'm not sure we should be as chilled about this as we are; it feels like the borderline between "sad but hey-ho" and "f@#* this is bad".
Why should we not be chilled about ~1000 deaths a week? Close to ten times that many die of natural causes anyway every single week even pre-Covid and we never freaked out about that.
People will be dying until the end of humanity of one thing or another and as this is now endemic, we're never going to see zero Covid deaths again potentially.
The vaccines have done the job in giving us enough herd immunity to prevent exponential growth kicking off and overwhelming the NHS again, but there'll still be cases especially amongst antivaxxers and still be breakthrough illnesses that could kill off some elderly vulnerable people.
That can't and shouldn't be stopped.
I have a lot of sympathy with that view.
But what is infuriating is that the UK could have started on teenagers three months ago, and could have started really pushing boosters at the start of last month. If they had done both those things, then we wouldn't have started to have the hospitals filling.
And right now, the hospitals aren't too full. And it's OK. And we don't need to consider new measures. (And half term is just a week away.)
But the hospitalisation situation doesn't have to get that much worse before we do need to start worrying.
Half term is fewer than 48 hours away here, and quite a few other places.
Corbyn really did bequeath Starmer a toxic legacy.
The problem is that Starmer isn't up to the job either.
Nonsense. I am not a Labour supporter, but Starmer has a great deal more credibility than the Clown that currently occupies No10. It is a long time before the next election. The big problem that Starmer has is not his own ability or credibility, it is that there is still a large part of the Labour Party that is even more ludicrous than many of those of the current government benches. History will judge how he does the long haul.
He reminds me a lot of Cameron: Massively underestimated by those in his own party that would rather have someone else, and derided by his opponents because they are simply too tribal or plain stupid to realise that he might just make it.
I agree with some of that: but Cameron always had a vision - even if you disagreed with it. Starmer seems unable to project any vision he may have without writing a WORN (*) magnum opus. Events haven't helped him, as the country and media are concentrating on bigger events.
Blair was a salesman. Cameron was also a salesman, to a lesser extent. Starmer doesn't appear to be one - and he needs to sell his vision for the country, to both the country and his own party.
(*) Write Once, Read Never. A common form of computer documentation.
"Blair was a salesman. Cameron was also a salesman, to a lesser extent. Starmer doesn't appear to be one - and he needs to sell his vision for the country, to both the country and his own party." - pretty much the whole reason I think Sir Keir won't be PM - plus the fact he is up against a very charismatic salesman
In a way, they appear polar opposites. Starmer may have a vision (I've no idea given he seems incapable of saying it); Boris doesn't have a vision beyond the end of his nose, but can sell the snot that dribbles out by the barrel-load.
We need a hideous scientific experiment where the two are merged together. Starson or Johnmer.
(I actually quite like Starson. Very sci-fi)
I saw a clip of Blair as LotO at PMQs the other day, and he seemed like he was bossing it vs Major (the famous one "I lead my party, he follows his", seems so horribly smug watching it now), and to an extent Cameron did with Brown, from what I can recall.
Miliband and Sir Keir always seem like they are earnestly whining about it being so unfair to me; maybe it's just the lack of gravitas in their voices. They seem like kids complaining about their parents, in comparison to the last couple of LotOs who became PM
No, he doesn't come over as whining to his parents about it being so unfair. The "wooden" critique is fair enough but you're just indulging yourself with this. Surprised you haven't as yet found fault with his eyebrows btw. Or have I missed that?
Comes over to me as whining to his parents about it being so unfair. He has a whiny voice, like Ed Miliband has, and coupled with his whole schtik being how nasty the govt and Boris are, it seems a bit "poor me"
Don't know about his eyebrows - he looks like a Teddy Boy who likes a beer to me, but Boris is no pin up either, so it doesn't really affect things
A deathly dull teddy boy with a whiny voice who likes a beer. It's pouring out now.
No point opposing such naked prejudice with reason, I've learnt this, but just on the voice - it's not whiny, it's a touch flat & nasal, which is completely different.
And what about your man "Boris". How does HE come over to you? Eg when he stands up and says he's going to "get social care done". Does this sort of thing come across as dynamic and determined, or like he has no clue what he's talking about and operates on pure bullshit?
Ooh, prejudice!!!
I used to absolute despise Boris, based almost solely on a combination of class hatred and inability to see how anyone could fall for his bluster - I wouldn't say he was my man now, I voted for him with a heavy heart and a lot of sadness at finally going over to the dark side. But he was the only one offering to honour the referendum result. As I have got older I can appreciate that a bit of charisma and optimism goes a long way, and dreary righteousness is unappealing
Ok, you're being your best self with that answer, so I'll take it without disbelief or rancour. At least for now.
Let me fill you in on what a contemptible prick starmer is:
Starmer as DPP was effectively in charge of prosecutions before juries. He was the country's leading authority on Not Prejudicing Trials. Against that background, he held a press conference to announce that the admittedly appalling Chris Huhne would be prosecuted for lying his head off. Now, what is the likely effect of that press conference on a potential juror? They are going to think, if they pay any attention at all, There wouldn't have been a press conference about this on national TV if there was nothing in it. And what's the benefit of holding the press conference? It's to raise Kier's fucking political profile.
An unprincipled twat.
So despite all evidence to the contrary, he is actually a politician?
Yeah killer point. But if he can't behave honourably as a lawyer, what can we expect from him as a politician?
That is a wonderfully naive comment (albeit TSE will have me force fed pineapple pizza for saying that).
Again, killer point, but I am a former solicitor too, and the underlying rule is: you don't do this shit while anyone is watching. And certainly not on prime time TV.
If I am making so many killer points, should I change my id to Killer Whales?
Corbyn really did bequeath Starmer a toxic legacy.
The problem is that Starmer isn't up to the job either.
Nonsense. I am not a Labour supporter, but Starmer has a great deal more credibility than the Clown that currently occupies No10. It is a long time before the next election. The big problem that Starmer has is not his own ability or credibility, it is that there is still a large part of the Labour Party that is even more ludicrous than many of those of the current government benches. History will judge how he does the long haul.
He reminds me a lot of Cameron: Massively underestimated by those in his own party that would rather have someone else, and derided by his opponents because they are simply too tribal or plain stupid to realise that he might just make it.
I agree with some of that: but Cameron always had a vision - even if you disagreed with it. Starmer seems unable to project any vision he may have without writing a WORN (*) magnum opus. Events haven't helped him, as the country and media are concentrating on bigger events.
Blair was a salesman. Cameron was also a salesman, to a lesser extent. Starmer doesn't appear to be one - and he needs to sell his vision for the country, to both the country and his own party.
(*) Write Once, Read Never. A common form of computer documentation.
"Blair was a salesman. Cameron was also a salesman, to a lesser extent. Starmer doesn't appear to be one - and he needs to sell his vision for the country, to both the country and his own party." - pretty much the whole reason I think Sir Keir won't be PM - plus the fact he is up against a very charismatic salesman
In a way, they appear polar opposites. Starmer may have a vision (I've no idea given he seems incapable of saying it); Boris doesn't have a vision beyond the end of his nose, but can sell the snot that dribbles out by the barrel-load.
We need a hideous scientific experiment where the two are merged together. Starson or Johnmer.
(I actually quite like Starson. Very sci-fi)
I saw a clip of Blair as LotO at PMQs the other day, and he seemed like he was bossing it vs Major (the famous one "I lead my party, he follows his", seems so horribly smug watching it now), and to an extent Cameron did with Brown, from what I can recall.
Miliband and Sir Keir always seem like they are earnestly whining about it being so unfair to me; maybe it's just the lack of gravitas in their voices. They seem like kids complaining about their parents, in comparison to the last couple of LotOs who became PM
No, he doesn't come over as whining to his parents about it being so unfair. The "wooden" critique is fair enough but you're just indulging yourself with this. Surprised you haven't as yet found fault with his eyebrows btw. Or have I missed that?
Comes over to me as whining to his parents about it being so unfair. He has a whiny voice, like Ed Miliband has, and coupled with his whole schtik being how nasty the govt and Boris are, it seems a bit "poor me"
Don't know about his eyebrows - he looks like a Teddy Boy who likes a beer to me, but Boris is no pin up either, so it doesn't really affect things
A deathly dull teddy boy with a whiny voice who likes a beer. It's pouring out now.
No point opposing such naked prejudice with reason, I've learnt this, but just on the voice - it's not whiny, it's a touch flat & nasal, which is completely different.
And what about your man "Boris". How does HE come over to you? Eg when he stands up and says he's going to "get social care done". Does this sort of thing come across as dynamic and determined, or like he has no clue what he's talking about and operates on pure bullshit?
Ooh, prejudice!!!
I used to absolute despise Boris, based almost solely on a combination of class hatred and inability to see how anyone could fall for his bluster - I wouldn't say he was my man now, I voted for him with a heavy heart and a lot of sadness at finally going over to the dark side. But he was the only one offering to honour the referendum result. As I have got older I can appreciate that a bit of charisma and optimism goes a long way, and dreary righteousness is unappealing
Ok, you're being your best self with that answer, so I'll take it without disbelief or rancour. At least for now.
Let me fill you in on what a contemptible prick starmer is:
Starmer as DPP was effectively in charge of prosecutions before juries. He was the country's leading authority on Not Prejudicing Trials. Against that background, he held a press conference to announce that the admittedly appalling Chris Huhne would be prosecuted for lying his head off. Now, what is the likely effect of that press conference on a potential juror? They are going to think, if they pay any attention at all, There wouldn't have been a press conference about this on national TV if there was nothing in it. And what's the benefit of holding the press conference? It's to raise Kier's fucking political profile.
An unprincipled twat.
So despite all evidence to the contrary, he is actually a politician?
Yeah killer point. But if he can't behave honourably as a lawyer, what can we expect from him as a politician?
We already know that.
He stayed in Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet and said he'd serve in a real Cabinet and support Corbyn as PM even after all the antisemitism came up.
He is the worst sort of self-serving careerist.
He also talks of wanting to give people from the same background as him the chances he got - He went to a Grammar School, which he wont reintroduce as far as I know, which turned into a private, fee paying school whilst he was there. So either his parents paid, in which case poor kids wont get that chance or, as some claim, the state paid for him to go private, in which case, is his government going to pay for bright poor kids to go to private school?
Well indeed quite the opposite, he wants to remove charitable status from private schools so further pulling the ladder up that he enjoyed using.
And lets not forget how he was #1 cheerleader for reversing the Brexit vote, saying there had to be another referendum and Labour would campaign for Remain no matter what happened. Right up until he became leader and suddenly he discovered that reversing the public's vote wasn't popular, antisemitism isn't popular and all the other lessons he couldn't spot while serving in Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet.
Corbyn really did bequeath Starmer a toxic legacy.
The problem is that Starmer isn't up to the job either.
Nonsense. I am not a Labour supporter, but Starmer has a great deal more credibility than the Clown that currently occupies No10. It is a long time before the next election. The big problem that Starmer has is not his own ability or credibility, it is that there is still a large part of the Labour Party that is even more ludicrous than many of those of the current government benches. History will judge how he does the long haul.
He reminds me a lot of Cameron: Massively underestimated by those in his own party that would rather have someone else, and derided by his opponents because they are simply too tribal or plain stupid to realise that he might just make it.
I agree with some of that: but Cameron always had a vision - even if you disagreed with it. Starmer seems unable to project any vision he may have without writing a WORN (*) magnum opus. Events haven't helped him, as the country and media are concentrating on bigger events.
Blair was a salesman. Cameron was also a salesman, to a lesser extent. Starmer doesn't appear to be one - and he needs to sell his vision for the country, to both the country and his own party.
(*) Write Once, Read Never. A common form of computer documentation.
"Blair was a salesman. Cameron was also a salesman, to a lesser extent. Starmer doesn't appear to be one - and he needs to sell his vision for the country, to both the country and his own party." - pretty much the whole reason I think Sir Keir won't be PM - plus the fact he is up against a very charismatic salesman
In a way, they appear polar opposites. Starmer may have a vision (I've no idea given he seems incapable of saying it); Boris doesn't have a vision beyond the end of his nose, but can sell the snot that dribbles out by the barrel-load.
We need a hideous scientific experiment where the two are merged together. Starson or Johnmer.
(I actually quite like Starson. Very sci-fi)
I saw a clip of Blair as LotO at PMQs the other day, and he seemed like he was bossing it vs Major (the famous one "I lead my party, he follows his", seems so horribly smug watching it now), and to an extent Cameron did with Brown, from what I can recall.
Miliband and Sir Keir always seem like they are earnestly whining about it being so unfair to me; maybe it's just the lack of gravitas in their voices. They seem like kids complaining about their parents, in comparison to the last couple of LotOs who became PM
No, he doesn't come over as whining to his parents about it being so unfair. The "wooden" critique is fair enough but you're just indulging yourself with this. Surprised you haven't as yet found fault with his eyebrows btw. Or have I missed that?
Comes over to me as whining to his parents about it being so unfair. He has a whiny voice, like Ed Miliband has, and coupled with his whole schtik being how nasty the govt and Boris are, it seems a bit "poor me"
Don't know about his eyebrows - he looks like a Teddy Boy who likes a beer to me, but Boris is no pin up either, so it doesn't really affect things
A deathly dull teddy boy with a whiny voice who likes a beer. It's pouring out now.
No point opposing such naked prejudice with reason, I've learnt this, but just on the voice - it's not whiny, it's a touch flat & nasal, which is completely different.
And what about your man "Boris". How does HE come over to you? Eg when he stands up and says he's going to "get social care done". Does this sort of thing come across as dynamic and determined, or like he has no clue what he's talking about and operates on pure bullshit?
Ooh, prejudice!!!
I used to absolute despise Boris, based almost solely on a combination of class hatred and inability to see how anyone could fall for his bluster - I wouldn't say he was my man now, I voted for him with a heavy heart and a lot of sadness at finally going over to the dark side. But he was the only one offering to honour the referendum result. As I have got older I can appreciate that a bit of charisma and optimism goes a long way, and dreary righteousness is unappealing
Ok, you're being your best self with that answer, so I'll take it without disbelief or rancour. At least for now.
Let me fill you in on what a contemptible prick starmer is:
Starmer as DPP was effectively in charge of prosecutions before juries. He was the country's leading authority on Not Prejudicing Trials. Against that background, he held a press conference to announce that the admittedly appalling Chris Huhne would be prosecuted for lying his head off. Now, what is the likely effect of that press conference on a potential juror? They are going to think, if they pay any attention at all, There wouldn't have been a press conference about this on national TV if there was nothing in it. And what's the benefit of holding the press conference? It's to raise Kier's fucking political profile.
An unprincipled twat.
So despite all evidence to the contrary, he is actually a politician?
Yeah killer point. But if he can't behave honourably as a lawyer, what can we expect from him as a politician?
We already know that.
He stayed in Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet and said he'd serve in a real Cabinet and support Corbyn as PM even after all the antisemitism came up.
He is the worst sort of self-serving careerist.
He also talks of wanting to give people from the same background as him the chances he got - He went to a Grammar School, which he wont reintroduce as far as I know, which turned into a private, fee paying school whilst he was there. So either his parents paid, in which case poor kids wont get that chance or, as some claim, the state paid for him to go private, in which case, is his government going to pay for bright poor kids to go to private school?
Surely, in the GE campaign, a journalist will ask him outright "Who paid for you to go to Private School?"
I'm not sure the state covering costs of students who passed the 11 plus would be that big a story to be honest.
That he did pass the 11 plus is more interesting. Presumably he wishes he could have gone to a bog standard comp, but again, I'm not sure it's that big an issue. The Tories don't want to bring them back where they were abolished, so it's not like he will have to give an opinion on this.
I keep having my Laptop fan getting very loud for the past week now and Chrome comes grinding to a halt, after doing a few diagnostics it seems that Chrome is going up to using almost 100% of CPU for no apparent reason. And it only seems to be happening when I have vf.politicalbetting.com open. Its not happening all the time, but it is happening quite frequently.
Closing Chrome drops the CPU use back down to next-to-nothing, and it seems closing just the PB tabs within Chrome is doing the same thing too.
There seems to be something on vf.politicalbetting.com or on my Laptop linking with that, that's driving that to happen.
Has anyone else had anything like this happen? I'm not sure if its happening with just Chrome or Firefox too.
Hmmm...
We have no control over the vf. site. Do you see the same issue on the regular site?
Corbyn really did bequeath Starmer a toxic legacy.
The problem is that Starmer isn't up to the job either.
Nonsense. I am not a Labour supporter, but Starmer has a great deal more credibility than the Clown that currently occupies No10. It is a long time before the next election. The big problem that Starmer has is not his own ability or credibility, it is that there is still a large part of the Labour Party that is even more ludicrous than many of those of the current government benches. History will judge how he does the long haul.
He reminds me a lot of Cameron: Massively underestimated by those in his own party that would rather have someone else, and derided by his opponents because they are simply too tribal or plain stupid to realise that he might just make it.
I agree with some of that: but Cameron always had a vision - even if you disagreed with it. Starmer seems unable to project any vision he may have without writing a WORN (*) magnum opus. Events haven't helped him, as the country and media are concentrating on bigger events.
Blair was a salesman. Cameron was also a salesman, to a lesser extent. Starmer doesn't appear to be one - and he needs to sell his vision for the country, to both the country and his own party.
(*) Write Once, Read Never. A common form of computer documentation.
"Blair was a salesman. Cameron was also a salesman, to a lesser extent. Starmer doesn't appear to be one - and he needs to sell his vision for the country, to both the country and his own party." - pretty much the whole reason I think Sir Keir won't be PM - plus the fact he is up against a very charismatic salesman
In a way, they appear polar opposites. Starmer may have a vision (I've no idea given he seems incapable of saying it); Boris doesn't have a vision beyond the end of his nose, but can sell the snot that dribbles out by the barrel-load.
We need a hideous scientific experiment where the two are merged together. Starson or Johnmer.
(I actually quite like Starson. Very sci-fi)
I saw a clip of Blair as LotO at PMQs the other day, and he seemed like he was bossing it vs Major (the famous one "I lead my party, he follows his", seems so horribly smug watching it now), and to an extent Cameron did with Brown, from what I can recall.
Miliband and Sir Keir always seem like they are earnestly whining about it being so unfair to me; maybe it's just the lack of gravitas in their voices. They seem like kids complaining about their parents, in comparison to the last couple of LotOs who became PM
No, he doesn't come over as whining to his parents about it being so unfair. The "wooden" critique is fair enough but you're just indulging yourself with this. Surprised you haven't as yet found fault with his eyebrows btw. Or have I missed that?
Comes over to me as whining to his parents about it being so unfair. He has a whiny voice, like Ed Miliband has, and coupled with his whole schtik being how nasty the govt and Boris are, it seems a bit "poor me"
Don't know about his eyebrows - he looks like a Teddy Boy who likes a beer to me, but Boris is no pin up either, so it doesn't really affect things
A deathly dull teddy boy with a whiny voice who likes a beer. It's pouring out now.
No point opposing such naked prejudice with reason, I've learnt this, but just on the voice - it's not whiny, it's a touch flat & nasal, which is completely different.
And what about your man "Boris". How does HE come over to you? Eg when he stands up and says he's going to "get social care done". Does this sort of thing come across as dynamic and determined, or like he has no clue what he's talking about and operates on pure bullshit?
Ooh, prejudice!!!
I used to absolute despise Boris, based almost solely on a combination of class hatred and inability to see how anyone could fall for his bluster - I wouldn't say he was my man now, I voted for him with a heavy heart and a lot of sadness at finally going over to the dark side. But he was the only one offering to honour the referendum result. As I have got older I can appreciate that a bit of charisma and optimism goes a long way, and dreary righteousness is unappealing
Ok, you're being your best self with that answer, so I'll take it without disbelief or rancour. At least for now.
Let me fill you in on what a contemptible prick starmer is:
Starmer as DPP was effectively in charge of prosecutions before juries. He was the country's leading authority on Not Prejudicing Trials. Against that background, he held a press conference to announce that the admittedly appalling Chris Huhne would be prosecuted for lying his head off. Now, what is the likely effect of that press conference on a potential juror? They are going to think, if they pay any attention at all, There wouldn't have been a press conference about this on national TV if there was nothing in it. And what's the benefit of holding the press conference? It's to raise Kier's fucking political profile.
An unprincipled twat.
So despite all evidence to the contrary, he is actually a politician?
Yeah killer point. But if he can't behave honourably as a lawyer, what can we expect from him as a politician?
We already know that.
He stayed in Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet and said he'd serve in a real Cabinet and support Corbyn as PM even after all the antisemitism came up.
He is the worst sort of self-serving careerist.
Second worst, Shirley? Unless you haven't noticed who is pm?
The coronavirus numbers this evening aren't inspiring - yet we can't go back. For too many people and you see it often on here, the very concept of a return to restrictions is anathema.
The prevailing ethos now is we "live with" the virus which I suppose we could have done in March 2020. We have nearly 80% of those aged 12 and above doubly vaccinated. In Newham, I estimate 55,000 people over 12 are not yet doubly vaccinated so there's still plenty of fuel for the virus.
I confess I'm starting to get concerned about the pace of the booster rollout. @MaxPB was waxing lyrical about getting 2.5 million vaccinated per week - I see little sign of that currently. Mrs Stodge and I are approaching five months since our second vaccination and I'm getting concerned the immunity the second vaccination provided will be wearing off in a few weeks.
Unless we get the booster programme moving, we'll be back in a bad position with weakly protected or unprotected people mixing indoors as we move into late autumn and winter.
Much of Europe is moving faster on both kids and boosters; if we are not careful the position last spring will reverse, and even PB Tories will have to stop going on about our vaccination triumph…
It’s too late, isn’t it? We’re behind Western Europe now.
I say this provocatively in the hopes someone will correct me.
It’s in Dr Campbell’s latest video. Our natural immunity is lower because people were vaccinated longer ago - hence we are to an extent victims of our early success - exacerbated by not much having happened since. Even older Americans are often boosted up, now.
If that were the case the data would show an increase in infection amongst older people. That's not the case at all.
We are seeing an increase in infection in older people. Not off the charts, but an increase nonetheless.
What % of the eligible fully dosed do we think will head out for a booster ? I'm hoping my Mum gets called up soon, she's AZ and definitely more vulnerable than she was in the spring.
The coronavirus numbers this evening aren't inspiring - yet we can't go back. For too many people and you see it often on here, the very concept of a return to restrictions is anathema.
The prevailing ethos now is we "live with" the virus which I suppose we could have done in March 2020. We have nearly 80% of those aged 12 and above doubly vaccinated. In Newham, I estimate 55,000 people over 12 are not yet doubly vaccinated so there's still plenty of fuel for the virus.
I confess I'm starting to get concerned about the pace of the booster rollout. @MaxPB was waxing lyrical about getting 2.5 million vaccinated per week - I see little sign of that currently. Mrs Stodge and I are approaching five months since our second vaccination and I'm getting concerned the immunity the second vaccination provided will be wearing off in a few weeks.
Unless we get the booster programme moving, we'll be back in a bad position with weakly protected or unprotected people mixing indoors as we move into late autumn and winter.
Much of Europe is moving faster on both kids and boosters; if we are not careful the position last spring will reverse, and even PB Tories will have to stop going on about our vaccination triumph…
It’s too late, isn’t it? We’re behind Western Europe now.
I say this provocatively in the hopes someone will correct me.
tl;dr
UK has a big waning immunity problem — bigger than Western Europe because of starting vax earlier — which is much more likely than masks to explain UK’s ongoing higher case & death rates https://t.co/8ofsYZjYR2
Potentially we're heading for fairly deep doohdooh and the "it's over" attitude isn't helping.
1000 deaths a week is 10% of all deaths, roughly. I'm not sure we should be as chilled about this as we are; it feels like the borderline between "sad but hey-ho" and "f@#* this is bad".
Why should we not be chilled about ~1000 deaths a week? Close to ten times that many die of natural causes anyway every single week even pre-Covid and we never freaked out about that.
People will be dying until the end of humanity of one thing or another and as this is now endemic, we're never going to see zero Covid deaths again potentially.
The vaccines have done the job in giving us enough herd immunity to prevent exponential growth kicking off and overwhelming the NHS again, but there'll still be cases especially amongst antivaxxers and still be breakthrough illnesses that could kill off some elderly vulnerable people.
That can't and shouldn't be stopped.
I have a lot of sympathy with that view.
But what is infuriating is that the UK could have started on teenagers three months ago, and could have started really pushing boosters at the start of last month. If they had done both those things, then we wouldn't have started to have the hospitals filling.
And right now, the hospitals aren't too full. And it's OK. And we don't need to consider new measures. (And half term is just a week away.)
But the hospitalisation situation doesn't have to get that much worse before we do need to start worrying.
Half term is fewer than 48 hours away here, and quite a few other places.
I keep having my Laptop fan getting very loud for the past week now and Chrome comes grinding to a halt, after doing a few diagnostics it seems that Chrome is going up to using almost 100% of CPU for no apparent reason. And it only seems to be happening when I have vf.politicalbetting.com open. Its not happening all the time, but it is happening quite frequently.
Closing Chrome drops the CPU use back down to next-to-nothing, and it seems closing just the PB tabs within Chrome is doing the same thing too.
There seems to be something on vf.politicalbetting.com or on my Laptop linking with that, that's driving that to happen.
Has anyone else had anything like this happen? I'm not sure if its happening with just Chrome or Firefox too.
Hmmm...
We have no control over the vf. site. Do you see the same issue on the regular site?
Could you use Google's Task Manager (Shift Escape) to check that that is the tab creating the load issue?
The coronavirus numbers this evening aren't inspiring - yet we can't go back. For too many people and you see it often on here, the very concept of a return to restrictions is anathema.
The prevailing ethos now is we "live with" the virus which I suppose we could have done in March 2020. We have nearly 80% of those aged 12 and above doubly vaccinated. In Newham, I estimate 55,000 people over 12 are not yet doubly vaccinated so there's still plenty of fuel for the virus.
I confess I'm starting to get concerned about the pace of the booster rollout. @MaxPB was waxing lyrical about getting 2.5 million vaccinated per week - I see little sign of that currently. Mrs Stodge and I are approaching five months since our second vaccination and I'm getting concerned the immunity the second vaccination provided will be wearing off in a few weeks.
Unless we get the booster programme moving, we'll be back in a bad position with weakly protected or unprotected people mixing indoors as we move into late autumn and winter.
Much of Europe is moving faster on both kids and boosters; if we are not careful the position last spring will reverse, and even PB Tories will have to stop going on about our vaccination triumph…
It’s too late, isn’t it? We’re behind Western Europe now.
I say this provocatively in the hopes someone will correct me.
It’s in Dr Campbell’s latest video. Our natural immunity is lower because people were vaccinated longer ago - hence we are to an extent victims of our early success - exacerbated by not much having happened since. Even older Americans are often boosted up, now.
If that were the case the data would show an increase in infection amongst older people. That's not the case at all.
We are seeing an increase in infection in older people. Not off the charts, but an increase nonetheless.
Israeli evidence suggests boosters in the older population will cause infection rates to crash among them. Need to put the foot down again. I think we have shifted away from the pop up sites back to go led, and I’m not sure it’s working. I may have that wrong of course.
I keep having my Laptop fan getting very loud for the past week now and Chrome comes grinding to a halt, after doing a few diagnostics it seems that Chrome is going up to using almost 100% of CPU for no apparent reason. And it only seems to be happening when I have vf.politicalbetting.com open. Its not happening all the time, but it is happening quite frequently.
Closing Chrome drops the CPU use back down to next-to-nothing, and it seems closing just the PB tabs within Chrome is doing the same thing too.
There seems to be something on vf.politicalbetting.com or on my Laptop linking with that, that's driving that to happen.
Has anyone else had anything like this happen? I'm not sure if its happening with just Chrome or Firefox too.
Hmmm...
We have no control over the vf. site. Do you see the same issue on the regular site?
I don't use the regular site except to read the thread headers normally, but I may start using it again and see if that fixes it.
It just seems a really weird problem to have and wasn't sure if anyone else was seeing the same thing.
Corbyn really did bequeath Starmer a toxic legacy.
The problem is that Starmer isn't up to the job either.
Nonsense. I am not a Labour supporter, but Starmer has a great deal more credibility than the Clown that currently occupies No10. It is a long time before the next election. The big problem that Starmer has is not his own ability or credibility, it is that there is still a large part of the Labour Party that is even more ludicrous than many of those of the current government benches. History will judge how he does the long haul.
He reminds me a lot of Cameron: Massively underestimated by those in his own party that would rather have someone else, and derided by his opponents because they are simply too tribal or plain stupid to realise that he might just make it.
I agree with some of that: but Cameron always had a vision - even if you disagreed with it. Starmer seems unable to project any vision he may have without writing a WORN (*) magnum opus. Events haven't helped him, as the country and media are concentrating on bigger events.
Blair was a salesman. Cameron was also a salesman, to a lesser extent. Starmer doesn't appear to be one - and he needs to sell his vision for the country, to both the country and his own party.
(*) Write Once, Read Never. A common form of computer documentation.
"Blair was a salesman. Cameron was also a salesman, to a lesser extent. Starmer doesn't appear to be one - and he needs to sell his vision for the country, to both the country and his own party." - pretty much the whole reason I think Sir Keir won't be PM - plus the fact he is up against a very charismatic salesman
In a way, they appear polar opposites. Starmer may have a vision (I've no idea given he seems incapable of saying it); Boris doesn't have a vision beyond the end of his nose, but can sell the snot that dribbles out by the barrel-load.
We need a hideous scientific experiment where the two are merged together. Starson or Johnmer.
(I actually quite like Starson. Very sci-fi)
I saw a clip of Blair as LotO at PMQs the other day, and he seemed like he was bossing it vs Major (the famous one "I lead my party, he follows his", seems so horribly smug watching it now), and to an extent Cameron did with Brown, from what I can recall.
Miliband and Sir Keir always seem like they are earnestly whining about it being so unfair to me; maybe it's just the lack of gravitas in their voices. They seem like kids complaining about their parents, in comparison to the last couple of LotOs who became PM
No, he doesn't come over as whining to his parents about it being so unfair. The "wooden" critique is fair enough but you're just indulging yourself with this. Surprised you haven't as yet found fault with his eyebrows btw. Or have I missed that?
Comes over to me as whining to his parents about it being so unfair. He has a whiny voice, like Ed Miliband has, and coupled with his whole schtik being how nasty the govt and Boris are, it seems a bit "poor me"
Don't know about his eyebrows - he looks like a Teddy Boy who likes a beer to me, but Boris is no pin up either, so it doesn't really affect things
A deathly dull teddy boy with a whiny voice who likes a beer. It's pouring out now.
No point opposing such naked prejudice with reason, I've learnt this, but just on the voice - it's not whiny, it's a touch flat & nasal, which is completely different.
And what about your man "Boris". How does HE come over to you? Eg when he stands up and says he's going to "get social care done". Does this sort of thing come across as dynamic and determined, or like he has no clue what he's talking about and operates on pure bullshit?
Ooh, prejudice!!!
I used to absolute despise Boris, based almost solely on a combination of class hatred and inability to see how anyone could fall for his bluster - I wouldn't say he was my man now, I voted for him with a heavy heart and a lot of sadness at finally going over to the dark side. But he was the only one offering to honour the referendum result. As I have got older I can appreciate that a bit of charisma and optimism goes a long way, and dreary righteousness is unappealing
Ok, you're being your best self with that answer, so I'll take it without disbelief or rancour. At least for now.
Let me fill you in on what a contemptible prick starmer is:
Starmer as DPP was effectively in charge of prosecutions before juries. He was the country's leading authority on Not Prejudicing Trials. Against that background, he held a press conference to announce that the admittedly appalling Chris Huhne would be prosecuted for lying his head off. Now, what is the likely effect of that press conference on a potential juror? They are going to think, if they pay any attention at all, There wouldn't have been a press conference about this on national TV if there was nothing in it. And what's the benefit of holding the press conference? It's to raise Kier's fucking political profile.
An unprincipled twat.
So despite all evidence to the contrary, he is actually a politician?
Yeah killer point. But if he can't behave honourably as a lawyer, what can we expect from him as a politician?
That is a wonderfully naive comment (albeit TSE will have me force fed pineapple pizza for saying that).
Again, killer point, but I am a former solicitor too, and the underlying rule is: you don't do this shit while anyone is watching. And certainly not on prime time TV.
If I am making so many killer points, should I change my id to Killer Whales?
Corbyn really did bequeath Starmer a toxic legacy.
The problem is that Starmer isn't up to the job either.
Nonsense. I am not a Labour supporter, but Starmer has a great deal more credibility than the Clown that currently occupies No10. It is a long time before the next election. The big problem that Starmer has is not his own ability or credibility, it is that there is still a large part of the Labour Party that is even more ludicrous than many of those of the current government benches. History will judge how he does the long haul.
He reminds me a lot of Cameron: Massively underestimated by those in his own party that would rather have someone else, and derided by his opponents because they are simply too tribal or plain stupid to realise that he might just make it.
I agree with some of that: but Cameron always had a vision - even if you disagreed with it. Starmer seems unable to project any vision he may have without writing a WORN (*) magnum opus. Events haven't helped him, as the country and media are concentrating on bigger events.
Blair was a salesman. Cameron was also a salesman, to a lesser extent. Starmer doesn't appear to be one - and he needs to sell his vision for the country, to both the country and his own party.
(*) Write Once, Read Never. A common form of computer documentation.
"Blair was a salesman. Cameron was also a salesman, to a lesser extent. Starmer doesn't appear to be one - and he needs to sell his vision for the country, to both the country and his own party." - pretty much the whole reason I think Sir Keir won't be PM - plus the fact he is up against a very charismatic salesman
In a way, they appear polar opposites. Starmer may have a vision (I've no idea given he seems incapable of saying it); Boris doesn't have a vision beyond the end of his nose, but can sell the snot that dribbles out by the barrel-load.
We need a hideous scientific experiment where the two are merged together. Starson or Johnmer.
(I actually quite like Starson. Very sci-fi)
I saw a clip of Blair as LotO at PMQs the other day, and he seemed like he was bossing it vs Major (the famous one "I lead my party, he follows his", seems so horribly smug watching it now), and to an extent Cameron did with Brown, from what I can recall.
Miliband and Sir Keir always seem like they are earnestly whining about it being so unfair to me; maybe it's just the lack of gravitas in their voices. They seem like kids complaining about their parents, in comparison to the last couple of LotOs who became PM
No, he doesn't come over as whining to his parents about it being so unfair. The "wooden" critique is fair enough but you're just indulging yourself with this. Surprised you haven't as yet found fault with his eyebrows btw. Or have I missed that?
Comes over to me as whining to his parents about it being so unfair. He has a whiny voice, like Ed Miliband has, and coupled with his whole schtik being how nasty the govt and Boris are, it seems a bit "poor me"
Don't know about his eyebrows - he looks like a Teddy Boy who likes a beer to me, but Boris is no pin up either, so it doesn't really affect things
A deathly dull teddy boy with a whiny voice who likes a beer. It's pouring out now.
No point opposing such naked prejudice with reason, I've learnt this, but just on the voice - it's not whiny, it's a touch flat & nasal, which is completely different.
And what about your man "Boris". How does HE come over to you? Eg when he stands up and says he's going to "get social care done". Does this sort of thing come across as dynamic and determined, or like he has no clue what he's talking about and operates on pure bullshit?
Ooh, prejudice!!!
I used to absolute despise Boris, based almost solely on a combination of class hatred and inability to see how anyone could fall for his bluster - I wouldn't say he was my man now, I voted for him with a heavy heart and a lot of sadness at finally going over to the dark side. But he was the only one offering to honour the referendum result. As I have got older I can appreciate that a bit of charisma and optimism goes a long way, and dreary righteousness is unappealing
Ok, you're being your best self with that answer, so I'll take it without disbelief or rancour. At least for now.
Let me fill you in on what a contemptible prick starmer is:
Starmer as DPP was effectively in charge of prosecutions before juries. He was the country's leading authority on Not Prejudicing Trials. Against that background, he held a press conference to announce that the admittedly appalling Chris Huhne would be prosecuted for lying his head off. Now, what is the likely effect of that press conference on a potential juror? They are going to think, if they pay any attention at all, There wouldn't have been a press conference about this on national TV if there was nothing in it. And what's the benefit of holding the press conference? It's to raise Kier's fucking political profile.
An unprincipled twat.
So despite all evidence to the contrary, he is actually a politician?
Yeah killer point. But if he can't behave honourably as a lawyer, what can we expect from him as a politician?
We already know that.
He stayed in Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet and said he'd serve in a real Cabinet and support Corbyn as PM even after all the antisemitism came up.
He is the worst sort of self-serving careerist.
Johnson stayed in May's cabinet and even voted for her deal, but no one ever doubts that he is a self serving careerist!
Incidentally does anyone get to the top of the greasy pole of politics without being a self serving careerist?
I keep having my Laptop fan getting very loud for the past week now and Chrome comes grinding to a halt, after doing a few diagnostics it seems that Chrome is going up to using almost 100% of CPU for no apparent reason. And it only seems to be happening when I have vf.politicalbetting.com open. Its not happening all the time, but it is happening quite frequently.
Closing Chrome drops the CPU use back down to next-to-nothing, and it seems closing just the PB tabs within Chrome is doing the same thing too.
There seems to be something on vf.politicalbetting.com or on my Laptop linking with that, that's driving that to happen.
Has anyone else had anything like this happen? I'm not sure if its happening with just Chrome or Firefox too.
Hmmm...
We have no control over the vf. site. Do you see the same issue on the regular site?
Could you use Google's Task Manager (Shift Escape) to check that that is the tab creating the load issue?
I've been having the same thing happen with Firefox.
"Blair was a salesman. Cameron was also a salesman, to a lesser extent. Starmer doesn't appear to be one - and he needs to sell his vision for the country, to both the country and his own party." - pretty much the whole reason I think Sir Keir won't be PM - plus the fact he is up against a very charismatic salesman
In a way, they appear polar opposites. Starmer may have a vision (I've no idea given he seems incapable of saying it); Boris doesn't have a vision beyond the end of his nose, but can sell the snot that dribbles out by the barrel-load.
We need a hideous scientific experiment where the two are merged together. Starson or Johnmer.
(I actually quite like Starson. Very sci-fi)
I saw a clip of Blair as LotO at PMQs the other day, and he seemed like he was bossing it vs Major (the famous one "I lead my party, he follows his", seems so horribly smug watching it now), and to an extent Cameron did with Brown, from what I can recall.
Miliband and Sir Keir always seem like they are earnestly whining about it being so unfair to me; maybe it's just the lack of gravitas in their voices. They seem like kids complaining about their parents, in comparison to the last couple of LotOs who became PM
No, he doesn't come over as whining to his parents about it being so unfair. The "wooden" critique is fair enough but you're just indulging yourself with this. Surprised you haven't as yet found fault with his eyebrows btw. Or have I missed that?
Comes over to me as whining to his parents about it being so unfair. He has a whiny voice, like Ed Miliband has, and coupled with his whole schtik being how nasty the govt and Boris are, it seems a bit "poor me"
Don't know about his eyebrows - he looks like a Teddy Boy who likes a beer to me, but Boris is no pin up either, so it doesn't really affect things
A deathly dull teddy boy with a whiny voice who likes a beer. It's pouring out now.
No point opposing such naked prejudice with reason, I've learnt this, but just on the voice - it's not whiny, it's a touch flat & nasal, which is completely different.
And what about your man "Boris". How does HE come over to you? Eg when he stands up and says he's going to "get social care done". Does this sort of thing come across as dynamic and determined, or like he has no clue what he's talking about and operates on pure bullshit?
Ooh, prejudice!!!
I used to absolute despise Boris, based almost solely on a combination of class hatred and inability to see how anyone could fall for his bluster - I wouldn't say he was my man now, I voted for him with a heavy heart and a lot of sadness at finally going over to the dark side. But he was the only one offering to honour the referendum result. As I have got older I can appreciate that a bit of charisma and optimism goes a long way, and dreary righteousness is unappealing
Ok, you're being your best self with that answer, so I'll take it without disbelief or rancour. At least for now.
Let me fill you in on what a contemptible prick starmer is:
Starmer as DPP was effectively in charge of prosecutions before juries. He was the country's leading authority on Not Prejudicing Trials. Against that background, he held a press conference to announce that the admittedly appalling Chris Huhne would be prosecuted for lying his head off. Now, what is the likely effect of that press conference on a potential juror? They are going to think, if they pay any attention at all, There wouldn't have been a press conference about this on national TV if there was nothing in it. And what's the benefit of holding the press conference? It's to raise Kier's fucking political profile.
An unprincipled twat.
Not my field at all. Was that a very unusual thing to do then? A prosecutor announcing a prosecution?
How many press conferences on upcoming prosecutions have you heard Max Hill QC give in the last 3 years?
Looks like tonight is "let's find some dirt on Starmer" night, dredging up stuff from his past, long before he was LOTO, including where his parents sent him to school. Smacks of desperation to me. Still, he'll know what attack lines to expect from the tabloids when the next GE gets under way. Though I thought PB may do better.
Starmer is clearly an anti-semitic, hypocritical private-school educated, serial DPP prosecutor who hates his country. Or something like that.
The coronavirus numbers this evening aren't inspiring - yet we can't go back. For too many people and you see it often on here, the very concept of a return to restrictions is anathema.
The prevailing ethos now is we "live with" the virus which I suppose we could have done in March 2020. We have nearly 80% of those aged 12 and above doubly vaccinated. In Newham, I estimate 55,000 people over 12 are not yet doubly vaccinated so there's still plenty of fuel for the virus.
I confess I'm starting to get concerned about the pace of the booster rollout. @MaxPB was waxing lyrical about getting 2.5 million vaccinated per week - I see little sign of that currently. Mrs Stodge and I are approaching five months since our second vaccination and I'm getting concerned the immunity the second vaccination provided will be wearing off in a few weeks.
Unless we get the booster programme moving, we'll be back in a bad position with weakly protected or unprotected people mixing indoors as we move into late autumn and winter.
Much of Europe is moving faster on both kids and boosters; if we are not careful the position last spring will reverse, and even PB Tories will have to stop going on about our vaccination triumph…
It’s too late, isn’t it? We’re behind Western Europe now.
I say this provocatively in the hopes someone will correct me.
It’s in Dr Campbell’s latest video. Our natural immunity is lower because people were vaccinated longer ago - hence we are to an extent victims of our early success - exacerbated by not much having happened since. Even older Americans are often boosted up, now.
If that were the case the data would show an increase in infection amongst older people. That's not the case at all.
We are seeing an increase in infection in older people. Not off the charts, but an increase nonetheless.
Israeli evidence suggests boosters in the older population will cause infection rates to crash among them. Need to put the foot down again. I think we have shifted away from the pop up sites back to go led, and I’m not sure it’s working. I may have that wrong of course.
Looks like tonight is "let's find some dirt on Starmer" night, dredging up stuff from his past, long before he was LOTO, including where his parents sent him to school. Smacks of desperation to me. Still, he'll know what attack lines to expect from the tabloids when the next GE gets under way. Though I thought PB may do better.
Starmer is clearly an anti-semitic, hypocritical private-school educated, serial DPP prosecutor who hates his country. Or something like that.
I think the Gambaccini story is interesting, though if he does run against Starmer, that might actually mean the TV media give the issue a wide berth due to the strict rules around reporting on specific constituencies.
The coronavirus numbers this evening aren't inspiring - yet we can't go back. For too many people and you see it often on here, the very concept of a return to restrictions is anathema.
The prevailing ethos now is we "live with" the virus which I suppose we could have done in March 2020. We have nearly 80% of those aged 12 and above doubly vaccinated. In Newham, I estimate 55,000 people over 12 are not yet doubly vaccinated so there's still plenty of fuel for the virus.
I confess I'm starting to get concerned about the pace of the booster rollout. @MaxPB was waxing lyrical about getting 2.5 million vaccinated per week - I see little sign of that currently. Mrs Stodge and I are approaching five months since our second vaccination and I'm getting concerned the immunity the second vaccination provided will be wearing off in a few weeks.
Unless we get the booster programme moving, we'll be back in a bad position with weakly protected or unprotected people mixing indoors as we move into late autumn and winter.
Much of Europe is moving faster on both kids and boosters; if we are not careful the position last spring will reverse, and even PB Tories will have to stop going on about our vaccination triumph…
It’s too late, isn’t it? We’re behind Western Europe now.
I say this provocatively in the hopes someone will correct me.
It’s in Dr Campbell’s latest video. Our natural immunity is lower because people were vaccinated longer ago - hence we are to an extent victims of our early success - exacerbated by not much having happened since. Even older Americans are often boosted up, now.
If that were the case the data would show an increase in infection amongst older people. That's not the case at all.
We are seeing an increase in infection in older people. Not off the charts, but an increase nonetheless.
Israeli evidence suggests boosters in the older population will cause infection rates to crash among them. Need to put the foot down again. I think we have shifted away from the pop up sites back to go led, and I’m not sure it’s working. I may have that wrong of course.
The coronavirus numbers this evening aren't inspiring - yet we can't go back. For too many people and you see it often on here, the very concept of a return to restrictions is anathema.
The prevailing ethos now is we "live with" the virus which I suppose we could have done in March 2020. We have nearly 80% of those aged 12 and above doubly vaccinated. In Newham, I estimate 55,000 people over 12 are not yet doubly vaccinated so there's still plenty of fuel for the virus.
I confess I'm starting to get concerned about the pace of the booster rollout. @MaxPB was waxing lyrical about getting 2.5 million vaccinated per week - I see little sign of that currently. Mrs Stodge and I are approaching five months since our second vaccination and I'm getting concerned the immunity the second vaccination provided will be wearing off in a few weeks.
Unless we get the booster programme moving, we'll be back in a bad position with weakly protected or unprotected people mixing indoors as we move into late autumn and winter.
Much of Europe is moving faster on both kids and boosters; if we are not careful the position last spring will reverse, and even PB Tories will have to stop going on about our vaccination triumph…
It’s too late, isn’t it? We’re behind Western Europe now.
I say this provocatively in the hopes someone will correct me.
It’s in Dr Campbell’s latest video. Our natural immunity is lower because people were vaccinated longer ago - hence we are to an extent victims of our early success - exacerbated by not much having happened since. Even older Americans are often boosted up, now.
If that were the case the data would show an increase in infection amongst older people. That's not the case at all.
We are seeing an increase in infection in older people. Not off the charts, but an increase nonetheless.
What % of the eligible fully dosed do we think will head out for a booster ? I'm hoping my Mum gets called up soon, she's AZ and definitely more vulnerable than she was in the spring.
I'm curious as to how many who didn't get their second dose have since been infected and so think they don't need a second dose.
In stock here for October delivery and you get the free headphones.
EE have it with the headphones but it's £136 for me to upgrade 5 months early. Tempted as my Pixel 4 XL's battery is starting to deteriorate but could just wait a little longer as I don't really need the headphones and I have a decent portable charger.
March 16th. Half the cases of Covid-19 in this country have been since March 16th. All that stuff last Christmas, that wasn't even half way to where we are today. Pretty unexpected.
The coronavirus numbers this evening aren't inspiring - yet we can't go back. For too many people and you see it often on here, the very concept of a return to restrictions is anathema.
The prevailing ethos now is we "live with" the virus which I suppose we could have done in March 2020. We have nearly 80% of those aged 12 and above doubly vaccinated. In Newham, I estimate 55,000 people over 12 are not yet doubly vaccinated so there's still plenty of fuel for the virus.
I confess I'm starting to get concerned about the pace of the booster rollout. @MaxPB was waxing lyrical about getting 2.5 million vaccinated per week - I see little sign of that currently. Mrs Stodge and I are approaching five months since our second vaccination and I'm getting concerned the immunity the second vaccination provided will be wearing off in a few weeks.
Unless we get the booster programme moving, we'll be back in a bad position with weakly protected or unprotected people mixing indoors as we move into late autumn and winter.
Much of Europe is moving faster on both kids and boosters; if we are not careful the position last spring will reverse, and even PB Tories will have to stop going on about our vaccination triumph…
It’s too late, isn’t it? We’re behind Western Europe now.
I say this provocatively in the hopes someone will correct me.
It’s in Dr Campbell’s latest video. Our natural immunity is lower because people were vaccinated longer ago - hence we are to an extent victims of our early success - exacerbated by not much having happened since. Even older Americans are often boosted up, now.
If that were the case the data would show an increase in infection amongst older people. That's not the case at all.
We are seeing an increase in infection in older people. Not off the charts, but an increase nonetheless.
Are you referring to cases? The ONS infection survey is flat as a pancake.
Looks like tonight is "let's find some dirt on Starmer" night, dredging up stuff from his past, long before he was LOTO, including where his parents sent him to school. Smacks of desperation to me. Still, he'll know what attack lines to expect from the tabloids when the next GE gets under way. Though I thought PB may do better.
Starmer is clearly an anti-semitic, hypocritical private-school educated, serial DPP prosecutor who hates his country. Or something like that.
I honestly just think that former heads of the CPS should never be a PM.
He's got that "look" about him though - Possibly Blair Mk 2
Looks like tonight is "let's find some dirt on Starmer" night, dredging up stuff from his past, long before he was LOTO, including where his parents sent him to school. Smacks of desperation to me. Still, he'll know what attack lines to expect from the tabloids when the next GE gets under way. Though I thought PB may do better.
Starmer is clearly an anti-semitic, hypocritical private-school educated, serial DPP prosecutor who hates his country. Or something like that.
Um, abject fail there, squire. Things he did as DPP is a bit different from, let's say, ill judged tweets in his teens, surely? A DPP who prefers furthering his own career to the interests of justice surely deserves at least a mention?
Not an anti Semite btw. Just a tolerator of anti semitism. So that's ok.
In stock here for October delivery and you get the free headphones.
How on earth do you cope with a phone with only 128GB storage space?
I got the 256GB, but I could probably do just fine with 128GB. My whole life is streamed. I have little to no locally stored music or videos. Only my own phone camera pics are on the phone and even those I have backed up to the cloud at full res with Google. I see no point in local storage for media and anything, err, sensitive I'd store offline and not on my phone anyway.
I keep having my Laptop fan getting very loud for the past week now and Chrome comes grinding to a halt, after doing a few diagnostics it seems that Chrome is going up to using almost 100% of CPU for no apparent reason. And it only seems to be happening when I have vf.politicalbetting.com open. Its not happening all the time, but it is happening quite frequently.
Closing Chrome drops the CPU use back down to next-to-nothing, and it seems closing just the PB tabs within Chrome is doing the same thing too.
There seems to be something on vf.politicalbetting.com or on my Laptop linking with that, that's driving that to happen.
Has anyone else had anything like this happen? I'm not sure if its happening with just Chrome or Firefox too.
Hmmm...
We have no control over the vf. site. Do you see the same issue on the regular site?
Could you use Google's Task Manager (Shift Escape) to check that that is the tab creating the load issue?
Looks like tonight is "let's find some dirt on Starmer" night, dredging up stuff from his past, long before he was LOTO, including where his parents sent him to school. Smacks of desperation to me. Still, he'll know what attack lines to expect from the tabloids when the next GE gets under way. Though I thought PB may do better.
Starmer is clearly an anti-semitic, hypocritical private-school educated, serial DPP prosecutor who hates his country. Or something like that.
The grammar school stuff is hysterical considering the difference between Thatcher's life experience & rhetoric versus the amount of grammar schools she actually closed.
Comments
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-58973621
It's been the vaccinations which have got us through 2021 - to be fair, the restrictions in the spring of 2020 were successful in reducing deaths and case numbers at the time.
Political decisions around re-opening in the autumn and early winter last year were I think questionable and we can but hope the independent public enquiry promised by the Prime Minister gets to the bottom of who knew what and when and the extent to which some politicians followed the scientific guidance and some didn't.
That said (and I may have said elsewhere), there has never been an infectious disease so well monitored as COVID-19. We have been testing so many people, so many who have acquired immunity and so often that mild re-infection might be a lot more common than we have supposed in the past. It's just no one noticed, to the point that in immunology textbooks say that, upon acquisition of immunity, following subsequent exposure, you won't even know you're sick. That's probably mostly true, except now you can do LFT and get PCR tests that will let you know! Very exciting times ahead in the field of immunology.
And what level of hospitalisations and deaths before we worry?
What matters under FPTP is the relative lead of your party against not only the second placed party but also the third party. Hence a 7% lead over Labour did not get Cameron a majority in 2010 as the LDs were on 23% while a 7% lead over Labour did get Cameron a majority in 2015 as the LDs collapsed to just 8% and UKIP failed to win more than 1 seat.
If Starmer gets a hung parliament and the Tories and DUP do not have a majority then Starmer will be PM as the SNP and LDs will back him even if Boris' Tories still win most seats
https://nanoporetech.com/products/minion
To save much you have to work at it, though.
Here is the Buildhub Boffins Corner thread with some commentary, and a script which will pull the historic tariff data from the Octopus API.
https://forum.buildhub.org.uk/topic/20070-octopus-agile-time-of-use-tariff/
I don't have a big time switcheable load (yet) eg heatpump for the ifh or heat battery, so no use to me at this time.
Are you in a marginal btw?
I keep having my Laptop fan getting very loud for the past week now and Chrome comes grinding to a halt, after doing a few diagnostics it seems that Chrome is going up to using almost 100% of CPU for no apparent reason. And it only seems to be happening when I have vf.politicalbetting.com open. Its not happening all the time, but it is happening quite frequently.
Closing Chrome drops the CPU use back down to next-to-nothing, and it seems closing just the PB tabs within Chrome is doing the same thing too.
There seems to be something on vf.politicalbetting.com or on my Laptop linking with that, that's driving that to happen.
Has anyone else had anything like this happen? I'm not sure if its happening with just Chrome or Firefox too.
Of course Corbyn got 40%, but that was deemed to be nothing special as the Tories got 44
Really needs to be automated so it is instantly determined with a margin of error on both sides for sticking with the on-field call like Umpire's Call in Cricket.
https://pixel-offers.com/headphones/en-GB
Corbyn in 2017 got a much higher vote share than Blair in 2005 and nearly as much as Blair got in 2001.
But that was after the death of the Lib Dems. Its not the same thing.
No hidden gems there.
I’m currently trying to figure out how to get my hands on “Un village Francais”.
Doing as well as Blair on gross vote share doesn’t conceal the fact he was four points behind rather than 3 or 9 points ahead.
... the ToU tariff is cheaper in comparison to current single rate and E7 "flexible" tariffs, so long as you can stick to some basic rules:
- Use the Midnight - 6AM window as much as possible for high-load stuff.
- Avoid the 15:30 - 18:30 peak demand pricing where practical and move as much daytime use out of this window. About the only use we have in this window is for "always on" devices and cooking and this is rarely more than 1 kWh during this window.
The price can fall considerably on an infrequent basis (11:00 - 14:30 on sunny days in the summer; anytime the wind is blowing).
If you have a Home automation system and use the daily price forecast API, then you can reduce your electricity overall costs further. Analysing our past usage E7 saves us about £15 / week in the winter months and a ToU tarrif would increase this saving to £20-25.
I've got an S9 that only charges wirelessly as its USB-C adaptor has died, but other than that it still works great. Tempted to get a new phone soon just because the lack of cable charging is frustrating, but less tempted to stick with Samsung anymore since this isn't my first one to have that issue.
Starmer as DPP was effectively in charge of prosecutions before juries. He was the country's leading authority on Not Prejudicing Trials. Against that background, he held a press conference to announce that the admittedly appalling Chris Huhne would be prosecuted for lying his head off. Now, what is the likely effect of that press conference on a potential juror? They are going to think, if they pay any attention at all, There wouldn't have been a press conference about this on national TV if there was nothing in it. And what's the benefit of holding the press conference? It's to raise Kier's fucking political profile.
An unprincipled twat.
"“I have the most negative feelings about Keir Starmer imaginable. Countless human beings were tormented because of him and he has never apologised. Keir is not only unsuitable to be leader of the Labour Party, he is unsuitable for any public position down to and including dog-catcher. He serves only himself and not the people.”
The extraordinary attack on the leadership hopeful is particularly wounding because Mr Gambacinni has been a prominent supporter of Labour. He has supported the party since the late 1980s and, until his arrest in 2013, hosted fundraisers for Ed Miliband at his London home.
Mr Gambacinni says other of the party’s celebrity supporters have spoken out against Sir Keir. He claims the actor Stephen Fry told an audience at a Labour fundraiser in 2014 “to remember a basic tenet of British justice: innocent until proven guilty — and pointed out that Operation Yewtree was losing more cases than it was winning”.
In 2015, Mr Tarbuck, 79, broke down in tears on a television talk show discussing his arrest in 2013 over false allegations of child sex abuse in the 1970. His accusers said they were molested on Top of the Pops in 1963. Tarbuck pointed out that he had never appeared on the show, which didn’t even begin till 1964. It took the CPS almost a year to clear him."
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/paul-gambaccini-ill-run-against-keir-starmer-over-my-child-abuse-witch-hunt-v8xjn68km
2-2 what a game so far.
I still have an S5 running Android 11 - works perfectly well for me, but then I'm not a heavy user (GPS / barometer / mapping, mostly).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Insurance
He stayed in Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet and said he'd serve in a real Cabinet and support Corbyn as PM even after all the antisemitism came up.
He is the worst sort of self-serving careerist.
We joined a trucker on the road to find out about the situation.
https://twitter.com/dw_politics/status/1450456679657639951?s=20
And lets not forget how he was #1 cheerleader for reversing the Brexit vote, saying there had to be another referendum and Labour would campaign for Remain no matter what happened. Right up until he became leader and suddenly he discovered that reversing the public's vote wasn't popular, antisemitism isn't popular and all the other lessons he couldn't spot while serving in Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet.
That he did pass the 11 plus is more interesting. Presumably he wishes he could have gone to a bog standard comp, but again, I'm not sure it's that big an issue. The Tories don't want to bring them back where they were abolished, so it's not like he will have to give an opinion on this.
We have no control over the vf. site. Do you see the same issue on the regular site?
I'm hoping my Mum gets called up soon, she's AZ and definitely more vulnerable than she was in the spring.
In stock here for October delivery and you get the free headphones.
It just seems a really weird problem to have and wasn't sure if anyone else was seeing the same thing.
Incidentally does anyone get to the top of the greasy pole of politics without being a self serving careerist?
Starmer is clearly an anti-semitic, hypocritical private-school educated, serial DPP prosecutor who hates his country. Or something like that.
We could see that repeated with the booster.
All that stuff last Christmas, that wasn't even half way to where we are today. Pretty unexpected.
He's got that "look" about him though - Possibly Blair Mk 2
Not an anti Semite btw. Just a tolerator of anti semitism. So that's ok.
It didn't harm her.