Cases rising from 1/4 of what was said to be the minimum plausible this Autumn (100k/day) to 1/3 of that level is not a justification for new restrictions. Neither is hospitalisations rising from 1/4 of what was said to be the minimum plausible (2k/day) to just 1/3 of that level.
The whole current discussion of a "need" for new restrictions is so baseless as to be ridiculous. Does it matter so little what the facts are? Folk think it's fine to advocate restricting people's lives willy-nilly, regardless of whether any data says its actually necessary?
The trouble is, right at the start the SAGE brigade held back from lockdowns because they didn't think people in a modern western democracy would do it. Then Italy did.
So, we need to make it clear somehow that we are not prepared to do it again.
We've done it three or four times now (it blurs) and we still cannot be assured that the costs don't out weigh the benefits.
But what do you (and other posters) mean by lockdown? Or are we steadfastly opposed to any mitigation whatsoever, whatever the circumstances?
I mean, the stay at home, do not go out, except to shops once a week, and walk the dog, pubs shut, cafe shut, non food stores shut etc etc.
Most of all I mean schools shut.
That's the lockdown the zealots want again.
Indeed there is a small(ish) but extremely vocal group who want exactly that. A quite extreme attack on liberty that is all too rarely challenged by the media.
You get a sense of desperation from some people practically crying why are we not freaking out over the few deaths per day happening in the UK now.
9 months ago or so either the CMO or CSO said possibly the most sensible words of the entire pandemic "we need to learn to live with Covid".
We have done. Good.
You don't strengthen your case with inaccuracy, do you? It's not a "few deaths a per day"; it's about 1,000 per week, with 223 reported today. I may agree with you on the principle, but not when you misreport data like that.
The COVID deniers on here still don't get it. Lots of hard lessons still to be learnt unfortunately.
You were predicting 200,000 cases a day by the summer
Cases rising from 1/4 of what was said to be the minimum plausible this Autumn (100k/day) to 1/3 of that level is not a justification for new restrictions. Neither is hospitalisations rising from 1/4 of what was said to be the minimum plausible (2k/day) to just 1/3 of that level.
The whole current discussion of a "need" for new restrictions is so baseless as to be ridiculous. Does it matter so little what the facts are? Folk think it's fine to advocate restricting people's lives willy-nilly, regardless of whether any data says its actually necessary?
The trouble is, right at the start the SAGE brigade held back from lockdowns because they didn't think people in a modern western democracy would do it. Then Italy did.
So, we need to make it clear somehow that we are not prepared to do it again.
We've done it three or four times now (it blurs) and we still cannot be assured that the costs don't out weigh the benefits.
But what do you (and other posters) mean by lockdown? Or are we steadfastly opposed to any mitigation whatsoever, whatever the circumstances?
I mean, the stay at home, do not go out, except to shops once a week, and walk the dog, pubs shut, cafe shut, non food stores shut etc etc.
Most of all I mean schools shut.
That's the lockdown the zealots want again.
Indeed there is a small(ish) but extremely vocal group who want exactly that. A quite extreme attack on liberty that is all too rarely challenged by the media.
You get a sense of desperation from some people practically crying why are we not freaking out over the few deaths per day happening in the UK now.
9 months ago or so either the CMO or CSO said possibly the most sensible words of the entire pandemic "we need to learn to live with Covid".
We have done. Good.
You don't strengthen your case with inaccuracy, do you? It's not a "few deaths a per day"; it's about 1,000 per week, with 223 reported today. I may agree with you on the principle, but not when you misreport data like that.
That is a few.
That is about 1 and a half persons per week per constituency.
Its background noise. Endemic. The kind of deaths that happen on a daily basis anyway without a virus.
A very poor response to my point. 1,000 odd a week is not a 'few' a day.
Yes it is. 🤷♂️
Close to ten thousand die per week even without this virus going around.
A thousand is few. Its entirely liveable. I wouldn't care if we had a thousand a week for the next fifty years, its background noise.
It is also the fat, old and stupid
It is brutal, but it is Darwinian. Perhaps we just have to let Darwin do his thang
Cases rising from 1/4 of what was said to be the minimum plausible this Autumn (100k/day) to 1/3 of that level is not a justification for new restrictions. Neither is hospitalisations rising from 1/4 of what was said to be the minimum plausible (2k/day) to just 1/3 of that level.
The whole current discussion of a "need" for new restrictions is so baseless as to be ridiculous. Does it matter so little what the facts are? Folk think it's fine to advocate restricting people's lives willy-nilly, regardless of whether any data says its actually necessary?
The trouble is, right at the start the SAGE brigade held back from lockdowns because they didn't think people in a modern western democracy would do it. Then Italy did.
So, we need to make it clear somehow that we are not prepared to do it again.
We've done it three or four times now (it blurs) and we still cannot be assured that the costs don't out weigh the benefits.
But what do you (and other posters) mean by lockdown? Or are we steadfastly opposed to any mitigation whatsoever, whatever the circumstances?
I mean, the stay at home, do not go out, except to shops once a week, and walk the dog, pubs shut, cafe shut, non food stores shut etc etc.
Most of all I mean schools shut.
That's the lockdown the zealots want again.
Indeed there is a small(ish) but extremely vocal group who want exactly that. A quite extreme attack on liberty that is all too rarely challenged by the media.
You get a sense of desperation from some people practically crying why are we not freaking out over the few deaths per day happening in the UK now.
9 months ago or so either the CMO or CSO said possibly the most sensible words of the entire pandemic "we need to learn to live with Covid".
We have done. Good.
You don't strengthen your case with inaccuracy, do you? It's not a "few deaths a per day"; it's about 1,000 per week, with 223 reported today. I may agree with you on the principle, but not when you misreport data like that.
The COVID deniers on here still don't get it. Lots of hard lessons still to be learnt unfortunately.
You were predicting 200,000 cases a day by the summer
Maybe I was a few months late .. . Hopefully not 😠
Cases rising from 1/4 of what was said to be the minimum plausible this Autumn (100k/day) to 1/3 of that level is not a justification for new restrictions. Neither is hospitalisations rising from 1/4 of what was said to be the minimum plausible (2k/day) to just 1/3 of that level.
The whole current discussion of a "need" for new restrictions is so baseless as to be ridiculous. Does it matter so little what the facts are? Folk think it's fine to advocate restricting people's lives willy-nilly, regardless of whether any data says its actually necessary?
The trouble is, right at the start the SAGE brigade held back from lockdowns because they didn't think people in a modern western democracy would do it. Then Italy did.
So, we need to make it clear somehow that we are not prepared to do it again.
We've done it three or four times now (it blurs) and we still cannot be assured that the costs don't out weigh the benefits.
But what do you (and other posters) mean by lockdown? Or are we steadfastly opposed to any mitigation whatsoever, whatever the circumstances?
I mean, the stay at home, do not go out, except to shops once a week, and walk the dog, pubs shut, cafe shut, non food stores shut etc etc.
Most of all I mean schools shut.
That's the lockdown the zealots want again.
Indeed there is a small(ish) but extremely vocal group who want exactly that. A quite extreme attack on liberty that is all too rarely challenged by the media.
You get a sense of desperation from some people practically crying why are we not freaking out over the few deaths per day happening in the UK now.
9 months ago or so either the CMO or CSO said possibly the most sensible words of the entire pandemic "we need to learn to live with Covid".
We have done. Good.
You don't strengthen your case with inaccuracy, do you? It's not a "few deaths a per day"; it's about 1,000 per week, with 223 reported today. I may agree with you on the principle, but not when you misreport data like that.
That is a few.
That is about 1 and a half persons per week per constituency.
Its background noise. Endemic. The kind of deaths that happen on a daily basis anyway without a virus.
A very poor response to my point. 1,000 odd a week is not a 'few' a day.
Yes it is. 🤷♂️
Close to ten thousand die per week even without this virus going around.
A thousand is few. Its entirely liveable. I wouldn't care if we had a thousand a week for the next fifty years, its background noise.
It is also the fat, old and stupid
It is brutal, but it is Darwinian. Perhaps we just have to let Darwin do his thang
Everyone has to die eventually. You can only play chess with the grim reaper for so long.
Covid is like a striker hanging around at the goal mouth. It goes for the easy tap-ins. Especially now post-vaccines almost entirely those who are dying from it are either those too fucking stupid to get an injection, or those whose time was up anyway.
"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?
So it was unusual, was it. Ok. I'm not au fait with DPP normal practice or with SKS's record in the role. He did it for 5 years so I imagine he trod on some toes. If the charge is he was corrupt and/or incompetent, that's a new one on me. I hope he wasn't, given he's likely our next PM. I hope it's generally felt by those in the know that he was effective in the job. Not the best DPP ever, maybe, but by no means the worst. This would be my hope.
My mother was the Chair of Chairs (the senior representative of the magistracy) at the time SKS was DPP. She does not have a high opinion of him. Total careerist was the politest thing she said.
Oh well, that's settled that then. If your mother didn't have a high opinion of him, he's well and truly fucked.
My mother doesn't have a high opinion of him either. Not voting Labour for the first time in her life. She is 91
Corbyn lost my late mother and father. I guess it’s down to the next generation to save us from Boris.
My daughters, 3 of them, have all been party members in their time. My youngest daughter was the last one to resign, about 2 months before me.
They are all planning not to vote Labour this time. I think one still will when push comes to shove.
In my family Starmer is minus 5 or 6 from the 6 Labour voters who still voted Labour even in 2019.
Cases rising from 1/4 of what was said to be the minimum plausible this Autumn (100k/day) to 1/3 of that level is not a justification for new restrictions. Neither is hospitalisations rising from 1/4 of what was said to be the minimum plausible (2k/day) to just 1/3 of that level.
The whole current discussion of a "need" for new restrictions is so baseless as to be ridiculous. Does it matter so little what the facts are? Folk think it's fine to advocate restricting people's lives willy-nilly, regardless of whether any data says its actually necessary?
The trouble is, right at the start the SAGE brigade held back from lockdowns because they didn't think people in a modern western democracy would do it. Then Italy did.
So, we need to make it clear somehow that we are not prepared to do it again.
We've done it three or four times now (it blurs) and we still cannot be assured that the costs don't out weigh the benefits.
But what do you (and other posters) mean by lockdown? Or are we steadfastly opposed to any mitigation whatsoever, whatever the circumstances?
I mean, the stay at home, do not go out, except to shops once a week, and walk the dog, pubs shut, cafe shut, non food stores shut etc etc.
Most of all I mean schools shut.
That's the lockdown the zealots want again.
Indeed there is a small(ish) but extremely vocal group who want exactly that. A quite extreme attack on liberty that is all too rarely challenged by the media.
You get a sense of desperation from some people practically crying why are we not freaking out over the few deaths per day happening in the UK now.
9 months ago or so either the CMO or CSO said possibly the most sensible words of the entire pandemic "we need to learn to live with Covid".
We have done. Good.
You don't strengthen your case with inaccuracy, do you? It's not a "few deaths a per day"; it's about 1,000 per week, with 223 reported today. I may agree with you on the principle, but not when you misreport data like that.
That is a few.
That is about 1 and a half persons per week per constituency.
Its background noise. Endemic. The kind of deaths that happen on a daily basis anyway without a virus.
A very poor response to my point. 1,000 odd a week is not a 'few' a day.
Yes it is. 🤷♂️
Close to ten thousand die per week even without this virus going around.
A thousand is few. Its entirely liveable. I wouldn't care if we had a thousand a week for the next fifty years, its background noise.
It is also the fat, old and stupid
It is brutal, but it is Darwinian. Perhaps we just have to let Darwin do his thang
The thing that gets me is this. Where is the public health information campaign? Non-existent.
Cases rising from 1/4 of what was said to be the minimum plausible this Autumn (100k/day) to 1/3 of that level is not a justification for new restrictions. Neither is hospitalisations rising from 1/4 of what was said to be the minimum plausible (2k/day) to just 1/3 of that level.
The whole current discussion of a "need" for new restrictions is so baseless as to be ridiculous. Does it matter so little what the facts are? Folk think it's fine to advocate restricting people's lives willy-nilly, regardless of whether any data says its actually necessary?
The trouble is, right at the start the SAGE brigade held back from lockdowns because they didn't think people in a modern western democracy would do it. Then Italy did.
So, we need to make it clear somehow that we are not prepared to do it again.
We've done it three or four times now (it blurs) and we still cannot be assured that the costs don't out weigh the benefits.
But what do you (and other posters) mean by lockdown? Or are we steadfastly opposed to any mitigation whatsoever, whatever the circumstances?
I mean, the stay at home, do not go out, except to shops once a week, and walk the dog, pubs shut, cafe shut, non food stores shut etc etc.
Most of all I mean schools shut.
That's the lockdown the zealots want again.
Indeed there is a small(ish) but extremely vocal group who want exactly that. A quite extreme attack on liberty that is all too rarely challenged by the media.
You get a sense of desperation from some people practically crying why are we not freaking out over the few deaths per day happening in the UK now.
9 months ago or so either the CMO or CSO said possibly the most sensible words of the entire pandemic "we need to learn to live with Covid".
We have done. Good.
You don't strengthen your case with inaccuracy, do you? It's not a "few deaths a per day"; it's about 1,000 per week, with 223 reported today. I may agree with you on the principle, but not when you misreport data like that.
That is a few.
That is about 1 and a half persons per week per constituency.
Its background noise. Endemic. The kind of deaths that happen on a daily basis anyway without a virus.
A very poor response to my point. 1,000 odd a week is not a 'few' a day.
Yes it is. 🤷♂️
Close to ten thousand die per week even without this virus going around.
A thousand is few. Its entirely liveable. I wouldn't care if we had a thousand a week for the next fifty years, its background noise.
It is also the fat, old and stupid
It is brutal, but it is Darwinian. Perhaps we just have to let Darwin do his thang
The thing that gets me is this. Where is the public health information campaign? Non-existent.
What you talkin bout Willis?
We've lived in a non-stop public health information campaign for the past 21 months. Its not like people haven't been told they need to go and get vaccinated.
Cases rising from 1/4 of what was said to be the minimum plausible this Autumn (100k/day) to 1/3 of that level is not a justification for new restrictions. Neither is hospitalisations rising from 1/4 of what was said to be the minimum plausible (2k/day) to just 1/3 of that level.
The whole current discussion of a "need" for new restrictions is so baseless as to be ridiculous. Does it matter so little what the facts are? Folk think it's fine to advocate restricting people's lives willy-nilly, regardless of whether any data says its actually necessary?
The trouble is, right at the start the SAGE brigade held back from lockdowns because they didn't think people in a modern western democracy would do it. Then Italy did.
So, we need to make it clear somehow that we are not prepared to do it again.
We've done it three or four times now (it blurs) and we still cannot be assured that the costs don't out weigh the benefits.
But what do you (and other posters) mean by lockdown? Or are we steadfastly opposed to any mitigation whatsoever, whatever the circumstances?
I mean, the stay at home, do not go out, except to shops once a week, and walk the dog, pubs shut, cafe shut, non food stores shut etc etc.
Most of all I mean schools shut.
That's the lockdown the zealots want again.
Indeed there is a small(ish) but extremely vocal group who want exactly that. A quite extreme attack on liberty that is all too rarely challenged by the media.
You get a sense of desperation from some people practically crying why are we not freaking out over the few deaths per day happening in the UK now.
9 months ago or so either the CMO or CSO said possibly the most sensible words of the entire pandemic "we need to learn to live with Covid".
We have done. Good.
You don't strengthen your case with inaccuracy, do you? It's not a "few deaths a per day"; it's about 1,000 per week, with 223 reported today. I may agree with you on the principle, but not when you misreport data like that.
That is a few.
That is about 1 and a half persons per week per constituency.
Its background noise. Endemic. The kind of deaths that happen on a daily basis anyway without a virus.
A very poor response to my point. 1,000 odd a week is not a 'few' a day.
Cases rising from 1/4 of what was said to be the minimum plausible this Autumn (100k/day) to 1/3 of that level is not a justification for new restrictions. Neither is hospitalisations rising from 1/4 of what was said to be the minimum plausible (2k/day) to just 1/3 of that level.
The whole current discussion of a "need" for new restrictions is so baseless as to be ridiculous. Does it matter so little what the facts are? Folk think it's fine to advocate restricting people's lives willy-nilly, regardless of whether any data says its actually necessary?
The trouble is, right at the start the SAGE brigade held back from lockdowns because they didn't think people in a modern western democracy would do it. Then Italy did.
So, we need to make it clear somehow that we are not prepared to do it again.
We've done it three or four times now (it blurs) and we still cannot be assured that the costs don't out weigh the benefits.
But what do you (and other posters) mean by lockdown? Or are we steadfastly opposed to any mitigation whatsoever, whatever the circumstances?
Lockdowns, group-size restrictions and mask mandates are oppressive, antisocial and illiberal measures. We should be extremely wary of reintroducing them. ‘Mitigations’ is an hyper-modern euphemism for what are considerable impositions on human life.
I note that our so called democratic members of parliament waved through another six months of extreme measures over covid without even a debate this afternoon.
Yup. Pretty disgraceful. I’m done with the lot of them.
We do not have an opposition worth its salt.
The sensible thing to do would be for the opposition at the least to say "since there are no restrictions in place we should let these powers lapse - if you need powers again then come back to Parliament and set the case out why its needed and what has gone wrong and they can be reissued if Parliament agrees at the time". There might be enough rebels on the Tory benches to go along with that, that he'd have no choice but to pull the renewal now.
Instead no, just let Boris have unlimited powers to do as he pleases. 🤦♂️
Cases rising from 1/4 of what was said to be the minimum plausible this Autumn (100k/day) to 1/3 of that level is not a justification for new restrictions. Neither is hospitalisations rising from 1/4 of what was said to be the minimum plausible (2k/day) to just 1/3 of that level.
The whole current discussion of a "need" for new restrictions is so baseless as to be ridiculous. Does it matter so little what the facts are? Folk think it's fine to advocate restricting people's lives willy-nilly, regardless of whether any data says its actually necessary?
The trouble is, right at the start the SAGE brigade held back from lockdowns because they didn't think people in a modern western democracy would do it. Then Italy did.
So, we need to make it clear somehow that we are not prepared to do it again.
We've done it three or four times now (it blurs) and we still cannot be assured that the costs don't out weigh the benefits.
But what do you (and other posters) mean by lockdown? Or are we steadfastly opposed to any mitigation whatsoever, whatever the circumstances?
I mean, the stay at home, do not go out, except to shops once a week, and walk the dog, pubs shut, cafe shut, non food stores shut etc etc.
Most of all I mean schools shut.
That's the lockdown the zealots want again.
Indeed there is a small(ish) but extremely vocal group who want exactly that. A quite extreme attack on liberty that is all too rarely challenged by the media.
You get a sense of desperation from some people practically crying why are we not freaking out over the few deaths per day happening in the UK now.
9 months ago or so either the CMO or CSO said possibly the most sensible words of the entire pandemic "we need to learn to live with Covid".
We have done. Good.
You don't strengthen your case with inaccuracy, do you? It's not a "few deaths a per day"; it's about 1,000 per week, with 223 reported today. I may agree with you on the principle, but not when you misreport data like that.
That is a few.
That is about 1 and a half persons per week per constituency.
Its background noise. Endemic. The kind of deaths that happen on a daily basis anyway without a virus.
A very poor response to my point. 1,000 odd a week is not a 'few' a day.
Yes it is. 🤷♂️
Close to ten thousand die per week even without this virus going around.
A thousand is few. Its entirely liveable. I wouldn't care if we had a thousand a week for the next fifty years, its background noise.
It is also the fat, old and stupid
It is brutal, but it is Darwinian. Perhaps we just have to let Darwin do his thang
The thing that gets me is this. Where is the public health information campaign? Non-existent.
What you talkin bout Willis?
We've lived in a non-stop public health information campaign for the past 21 months. Its not like people haven't been told they need to go and get vaccinated.
Then it stopped. Hand washing, ventilation, etc. are still easy wins. So is encouraging folk to lose weight, take exercise, etc. Cover your mouth when coughing, sneezing. None of these have ceased to be true. From people's behaviour you would think they had.
Cases rising from 1/4 of what was said to be the minimum plausible this Autumn (100k/day) to 1/3 of that level is not a justification for new restrictions. Neither is hospitalisations rising from 1/4 of what was said to be the minimum plausible (2k/day) to just 1/3 of that level.
The whole current discussion of a "need" for new restrictions is so baseless as to be ridiculous. Does it matter so little what the facts are? Folk think it's fine to advocate restricting people's lives willy-nilly, regardless of whether any data says its actually necessary?
The trouble is, right at the start the SAGE brigade held back from lockdowns because they didn't think people in a modern western democracy would do it. Then Italy did.
So, we need to make it clear somehow that we are not prepared to do it again.
We've done it three or four times now (it blurs) and we still cannot be assured that the costs don't out weigh the benefits.
But what do you (and other posters) mean by lockdown? Or are we steadfastly opposed to any mitigation whatsoever, whatever the circumstances?
I mean, the stay at home, do not go out, except to shops once a week, and walk the dog, pubs shut, cafe shut, non food stores shut etc etc.
Most of all I mean schools shut.
That's the lockdown the zealots want again.
Indeed there is a small(ish) but extremely vocal group who want exactly that. A quite extreme attack on liberty that is all too rarely challenged by the media.
You get a sense of desperation from some people practically crying why are we not freaking out over the few deaths per day happening in the UK now.
9 months ago or so either the CMO or CSO said possibly the most sensible words of the entire pandemic "we need to learn to live with Covid".
We have done. Good.
You don't strengthen your case with inaccuracy, do you? It's not a "few deaths a per day"; it's about 1,000 per week, with 223 reported today. I may agree with you on the principle, but not when you misreport data like that.
The COVID deniers on here still don't get it. Lots of hard lessons still to be learnt unfortunately.
Cases rising from 1/4 of what was said to be the minimum plausible this Autumn (100k/day) to 1/3 of that level is not a justification for new restrictions. Neither is hospitalisations rising from 1/4 of what was said to be the minimum plausible (2k/day) to just 1/3 of that level.
The whole current discussion of a "need" for new restrictions is so baseless as to be ridiculous. Does it matter so little what the facts are? Folk think it's fine to advocate restricting people's lives willy-nilly, regardless of whether any data says its actually necessary?
The trouble is, right at the start the SAGE brigade held back from lockdowns because they didn't think people in a modern western democracy would do it. Then Italy did.
So, we need to make it clear somehow that we are not prepared to do it again.
We've done it three or four times now (it blurs) and we still cannot be assured that the costs don't out weigh the benefits.
But what do you (and other posters) mean by lockdown? Or are we steadfastly opposed to any mitigation whatsoever, whatever the circumstances?
I mean, the stay at home, do not go out, except to shops once a week, and walk the dog, pubs shut, cafe shut, non food stores shut etc etc.
Most of all I mean schools shut.
That's the lockdown the zealots want again.
Indeed there is a small(ish) but extremely vocal group who want exactly that. A quite extreme attack on liberty that is all too rarely challenged by the media.
You get a sense of desperation from some people practically crying why are we not freaking out over the few deaths per day happening in the UK now.
9 months ago or so either the CMO or CSO said possibly the most sensible words of the entire pandemic "we need to learn to live with Covid".
We have done. Good.
You don't strengthen your case with inaccuracy, do you? It's not a "few deaths a per day"; it's about 1,000 per week, with 223 reported today. I may agree with you on the principle, but not when you misreport data like that.
The COVID deniers on here still don't get it. Lots of hard lessons still to be learnt unfortunately.
You were predicting 200,000 cases a day by the summer
He was. Among other ludicrous predictions which I could list but can’t be bothered to. And calling Phillip a covid denier is simply stupid: he might disagree with the policy approach to covid, but he has never denied its existence or potency to my knowledge.
Cases rising from 1/4 of what was said to be the minimum plausible this Autumn (100k/day) to 1/3 of that level is not a justification for new restrictions. Neither is hospitalisations rising from 1/4 of what was said to be the minimum plausible (2k/day) to just 1/3 of that level.
The whole current discussion of a "need" for new restrictions is so baseless as to be ridiculous. Does it matter so little what the facts are? Folk think it's fine to advocate restricting people's lives willy-nilly, regardless of whether any data says its actually necessary?
The trouble is, right at the start the SAGE brigade held back from lockdowns because they didn't think people in a modern western democracy would do it. Then Italy did.
So, we need to make it clear somehow that we are not prepared to do it again.
We've done it three or four times now (it blurs) and we still cannot be assured that the costs don't out weigh the benefits.
But what do you (and other posters) mean by lockdown? Or are we steadfastly opposed to any mitigation whatsoever, whatever the circumstances?
I mean, the stay at home, do not go out, except to shops once a week, and walk the dog, pubs shut, cafe shut, non food stores shut etc etc.
Most of all I mean schools shut.
That's the lockdown the zealots want again.
Indeed there is a small(ish) but extremely vocal group who want exactly that. A quite extreme attack on liberty that is all too rarely challenged by the media.
You get a sense of desperation from some people practically crying why are we not freaking out over the few deaths per day happening in the UK now.
9 months ago or so either the CMO or CSO said possibly the most sensible words of the entire pandemic "we need to learn to live with Covid".
We have done. Good.
You don't strengthen your case with inaccuracy, do you? It's not a "few deaths a per day"; it's about 1,000 per week, with 223 reported today. I may agree with you on the principle, but not when you misreport data like that.
The COVID deniers on here still don't get it. Lots of hard lessons still to be learnt unfortunately.
Cases rising from 1/4 of what was said to be the minimum plausible this Autumn (100k/day) to 1/3 of that level is not a justification for new restrictions. Neither is hospitalisations rising from 1/4 of what was said to be the minimum plausible (2k/day) to just 1/3 of that level.
The whole current discussion of a "need" for new restrictions is so baseless as to be ridiculous. Does it matter so little what the facts are? Folk think it's fine to advocate restricting people's lives willy-nilly, regardless of whether any data says its actually necessary?
The trouble is, right at the start the SAGE brigade held back from lockdowns because they didn't think people in a modern western democracy would do it. Then Italy did.
So, we need to make it clear somehow that we are not prepared to do it again.
We've done it three or four times now (it blurs) and we still cannot be assured that the costs don't out weigh the benefits.
But what do you (and other posters) mean by lockdown? Or are we steadfastly opposed to any mitigation whatsoever, whatever the circumstances?
I mean, the stay at home, do not go out, except to shops once a week, and walk the dog, pubs shut, cafe shut, non food stores shut etc etc.
Most of all I mean schools shut.
That's the lockdown the zealots want again.
Indeed there is a small(ish) but extremely vocal group who want exactly that. A quite extreme attack on liberty that is all too rarely challenged by the media.
You get a sense of desperation from some people practically crying why are we not freaking out over the few deaths per day happening in the UK now.
9 months ago or so either the CMO or CSO said possibly the most sensible words of the entire pandemic "we need to learn to live with Covid".
We have done. Good.
You don't strengthen your case with inaccuracy, do you? It's not a "few deaths a per day"; it's about 1,000 per week, with 223 reported today. I may agree with you on the principle, but not when you misreport data like that.
The COVID deniers on here still don't get it. Lots of hard lessons still to be learnt unfortunately.
You were predicting 200,000 cases a day by the summer
He was. Among other ludicrous predictions which I could list but can’t be bothered to. And calling Phillip a covid denier is simply stupid: he might disagree with the policy approach to covid, but he has never denied its existence or potency to my knowledge.
Be afraid. Be very afraid. It's out of control.
Would help if we could get on with the booster programme.
Cases rising from 1/4 of what was said to be the minimum plausible this Autumn (100k/day) to 1/3 of that level is not a justification for new restrictions. Neither is hospitalisations rising from 1/4 of what was said to be the minimum plausible (2k/day) to just 1/3 of that level.
The whole current discussion of a "need" for new restrictions is so baseless as to be ridiculous. Does it matter so little what the facts are? Folk think it's fine to advocate restricting people's lives willy-nilly, regardless of whether any data says its actually necessary?
The trouble is, right at the start the SAGE brigade held back from lockdowns because they didn't think people in a modern western democracy would do it. Then Italy did.
So, we need to make it clear somehow that we are not prepared to do it again.
We've done it three or four times now (it blurs) and we still cannot be assured that the costs don't out weigh the benefits.
But what do you (and other posters) mean by lockdown? Or are we steadfastly opposed to any mitigation whatsoever, whatever the circumstances?
I mean, the stay at home, do not go out, except to shops once a week, and walk the dog, pubs shut, cafe shut, non food stores shut etc etc.
Most of all I mean schools shut.
That's the lockdown the zealots want again.
Indeed there is a small(ish) but extremely vocal group who want exactly that. A quite extreme attack on liberty that is all too rarely challenged by the media.
You get a sense of desperation from some people practically crying why are we not freaking out over the few deaths per day happening in the UK now.
9 months ago or so either the CMO or CSO said possibly the most sensible words of the entire pandemic "we need to learn to live with Covid".
We have done. Good.
You don't strengthen your case with inaccuracy, do you? It's not a "few deaths a per day"; it's about 1,000 per week, with 223 reported today. I may agree with you on the principle, but not when you misreport data like that.
Cases rising from 1/4 of what was said to be the minimum plausible this Autumn (100k/day) to 1/3 of that level is not a justification for new restrictions. Neither is hospitalisations rising from 1/4 of what was said to be the minimum plausible (2k/day) to just 1/3 of that level.
The whole current discussion of a "need" for new restrictions is so baseless as to be ridiculous. Does it matter so little what the facts are? Folk think it's fine to advocate restricting people's lives willy-nilly, regardless of whether any data says its actually necessary?
The trouble is, right at the start the SAGE brigade held back from lockdowns because they didn't think people in a modern western democracy would do it. Then Italy did.
So, we need to make it clear somehow that we are not prepared to do it again.
We've done it three or four times now (it blurs) and we still cannot be assured that the costs don't out weigh the benefits.
But what do you (and other posters) mean by lockdown? Or are we steadfastly opposed to any mitigation whatsoever, whatever the circumstances?
I mean, the stay at home, do not go out, except to shops once a week, and walk the dog, pubs shut, cafe shut, non food stores shut etc etc.
Most of all I mean schools shut.
That's the lockdown the zealots want again.
Indeed there is a small(ish) but extremely vocal group who want exactly that. A quite extreme attack on liberty that is all too rarely challenged by the media.
You get a sense of desperation from some people practically crying why are we not freaking out over the few deaths per day happening in the UK now.
9 months ago or so either the CMO or CSO said possibly the most sensible words of the entire pandemic "we need to learn to live with Covid".
We have done. Good.
You don't strengthen your case with inaccuracy, do you? It's not a "few deaths a per day"; it's about 1,000 per week, with 223 reported today. I may agree with you on the principle, but not when you misreport data like that.
The COVID deniers on here still don't get it. Lots of hard lessons still to be learnt unfortunately.
If you are that bothered then just lock yourself away permanently. The rest of us will get on with our lives and forget about you.
Random local data point (Bristol) my kid's secondary school switched to virtual learning from today for the remainder of the week due to covid.
It has been a nice addition to the WFH setup. I got to drop in and overhear a chemistry lesson.
Had a kids party at the weekend, from 10 children - 2 covid positive no shows and a third tested positive after the party. In retrospect a 'locked in the room party' isn't really that smart in a pandemic (file that in the big book of pandemic learnings)
Cases rising from 1/4 of what was said to be the minimum plausible this Autumn (100k/day) to 1/3 of that level is not a justification for new restrictions. Neither is hospitalisations rising from 1/4 of what was said to be the minimum plausible (2k/day) to just 1/3 of that level.
The whole current discussion of a "need" for new restrictions is so baseless as to be ridiculous. Does it matter so little what the facts are? Folk think it's fine to advocate restricting people's lives willy-nilly, regardless of whether any data says its actually necessary?
The trouble is, right at the start the SAGE brigade held back from lockdowns because they didn't think people in a modern western democracy would do it. Then Italy did.
So, we need to make it clear somehow that we are not prepared to do it again.
We've done it three or four times now (it blurs) and we still cannot be assured that the costs don't out weigh the benefits.
But what do you (and other posters) mean by lockdown? Or are we steadfastly opposed to any mitigation whatsoever, whatever the circumstances?
I mean, the stay at home, do not go out, except to shops once a week, and walk the dog, pubs shut, cafe shut, non food stores shut etc etc.
Most of all I mean schools shut.
That's the lockdown the zealots want again.
Indeed there is a small(ish) but extremely vocal group who want exactly that. A quite extreme attack on liberty that is all too rarely challenged by the media.
You get a sense of desperation from some people practically crying why are we not freaking out over the few deaths per day happening in the UK now.
9 months ago or so either the CMO or CSO said possibly the most sensible words of the entire pandemic "we need to learn to live with Covid".
We have done. Good.
You don't strengthen your case with inaccuracy, do you? It's not a "few deaths a per day"; it's about 1,000 per week, with 223 reported today. I may agree with you on the principle, but not when you misreport data like that.
The COVID deniers on here still don't get it. Lots of hard lessons still to be learnt unfortunately.
Cases rising from 1/4 of what was said to be the minimum plausible this Autumn (100k/day) to 1/3 of that level is not a justification for new restrictions. Neither is hospitalisations rising from 1/4 of what was said to be the minimum plausible (2k/day) to just 1/3 of that level.
The whole current discussion of a "need" for new restrictions is so baseless as to be ridiculous. Does it matter so little what the facts are? Folk think it's fine to advocate restricting people's lives willy-nilly, regardless of whether any data says its actually necessary?
The trouble is, right at the start the SAGE brigade held back from lockdowns because they didn't think people in a modern western democracy would do it. Then Italy did.
So, we need to make it clear somehow that we are not prepared to do it again.
We've done it three or four times now (it blurs) and we still cannot be assured that the costs don't out weigh the benefits.
But what do you (and other posters) mean by lockdown? Or are we steadfastly opposed to any mitigation whatsoever, whatever the circumstances?
I mean, the stay at home, do not go out, except to shops once a week, and walk the dog, pubs shut, cafe shut, non food stores shut etc etc.
Most of all I mean schools shut.
That's the lockdown the zealots want again.
Indeed there is a small(ish) but extremely vocal group who want exactly that. A quite extreme attack on liberty that is all too rarely challenged by the media.
You get a sense of desperation from some people practically crying why are we not freaking out over the few deaths per day happening in the UK now.
9 months ago or so either the CMO or CSO said possibly the most sensible words of the entire pandemic "we need to learn to live with Covid".
We have done. Good.
You don't strengthen your case with inaccuracy, do you? It's not a "few deaths a per day"; it's about 1,000 per week, with 223 reported today. I may agree with you on the principle, but not when you misreport data like that.
The COVID deniers on here still don't get it. Lots of hard lessons still to be learnt unfortunately.
You were predicting 200,000 cases a day by the summer
He was. Among other ludicrous predictions which I could list but can’t be bothered to. And calling Phillip a covid denier is simply stupid: he might disagree with the policy approach to covid, but he has never denied its existence or potency to my knowledge.
Be afraid. Be very afraid. It's out of control.
Would help if we could get on with the booster programme.
😠😠😠😠
Yes I agree with you on the booster programme- it’s slow and a bit shit. As I have already said.
I certainly don’t agree with you on being very afraid: we have done enough damage to the nation’s mental health already by actively encouraging fearfulness.
And regarding it being “out of control”, last time you said that cases soon started falling, so I don’t think you know whether it’s out of control or otherwise. I don’t consider you much of a forecaster.
Cases rising from 1/4 of what was said to be the minimum plausible this Autumn (100k/day) to 1/3 of that level is not a justification for new restrictions. Neither is hospitalisations rising from 1/4 of what was said to be the minimum plausible (2k/day) to just 1/3 of that level.
The whole current discussion of a "need" for new restrictions is so baseless as to be ridiculous. Does it matter so little what the facts are? Folk think it's fine to advocate restricting people's lives willy-nilly, regardless of whether any data says its actually necessary?
The trouble is, right at the start the SAGE brigade held back from lockdowns because they didn't think people in a modern western democracy would do it. Then Italy did.
So, we need to make it clear somehow that we are not prepared to do it again.
We've done it three or four times now (it blurs) and we still cannot be assured that the costs don't out weigh the benefits.
But what do you (and other posters) mean by lockdown? Or are we steadfastly opposed to any mitigation whatsoever, whatever the circumstances?
I mean, the stay at home, do not go out, except to shops once a week, and walk the dog, pubs shut, cafe shut, non food stores shut etc etc.
Most of all I mean schools shut.
That's the lockdown the zealots want again.
Indeed there is a small(ish) but extremely vocal group who want exactly that. A quite extreme attack on liberty that is all too rarely challenged by the media.
You get a sense of desperation from some people practically crying why are we not freaking out over the few deaths per day happening in the UK now.
9 months ago or so either the CMO or CSO said possibly the most sensible words of the entire pandemic "we need to learn to live with Covid".
We have done. Good.
You don't strengthen your case with inaccuracy, do you? It's not a "few deaths a per day"; it's about 1,000 per week, with 223 reported today. I may agree with you on the principle, but not when you misreport data like that.
The COVID deniers on here still don't get it. Lots of hard lessons still to be learnt unfortunately.
Cases rising from 1/4 of what was said to be the minimum plausible this Autumn (100k/day) to 1/3 of that level is not a justification for new restrictions. Neither is hospitalisations rising from 1/4 of what was said to be the minimum plausible (2k/day) to just 1/3 of that level.
The whole current discussion of a "need" for new restrictions is so baseless as to be ridiculous. Does it matter so little what the facts are? Folk think it's fine to advocate restricting people's lives willy-nilly, regardless of whether any data says its actually necessary?
The trouble is, right at the start the SAGE brigade held back from lockdowns because they didn't think people in a modern western democracy would do it. Then Italy did.
So, we need to make it clear somehow that we are not prepared to do it again.
We've done it three or four times now (it blurs) and we still cannot be assured that the costs don't out weigh the benefits.
But what do you (and other posters) mean by lockdown? Or are we steadfastly opposed to any mitigation whatsoever, whatever the circumstances?
I mean, the stay at home, do not go out, except to shops once a week, and walk the dog, pubs shut, cafe shut, non food stores shut etc etc.
Most of all I mean schools shut.
That's the lockdown the zealots want again.
Indeed there is a small(ish) but extremely vocal group who want exactly that. A quite extreme attack on liberty that is all too rarely challenged by the media.
You get a sense of desperation from some people practically crying why are we not freaking out over the few deaths per day happening in the UK now.
9 months ago or so either the CMO or CSO said possibly the most sensible words of the entire pandemic "we need to learn to live with Covid".
We have done. Good.
You don't strengthen your case with inaccuracy, do you? It's not a "few deaths a per day"; it's about 1,000 per week, with 223 reported today. I may agree with you on the principle, but not when you misreport data like that.
The COVID deniers on here still don't get it. Lots of hard lessons still to be learnt unfortunately.
You were predicting 200,000 cases a day by the summer
He was. Among other ludicrous predictions which I could list but can’t be bothered to. And calling Phillip a covid denier is simply stupid: he might disagree with the policy approach to covid, but he has never denied its existence or potency to my knowledge.
Be afraid. Be very afraid. It's out of control.
Would help if we could get on with the booster programme.
😠😠😠😠
How's it out of control? Is it increasing exponentially?
It's stable and endemic. Learn to live with it and get on with your lives. If few people die each day then that's life, everyone has to go eventually.
"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?
So it was unusual, was it. Ok. I'm not au fait with DPP normal practice or with SKS's record in the role. He did it for 5 years so I imagine he trod on some toes. If the charge is he was corrupt and/or incompetent, that's a new one on me. I hope he wasn't, given he's likely our next PM. I hope it's generally felt by those in the know that he was effective in the job. Not the best DPP ever, maybe, but by no means the worst. This would be my hope.
My mother was the Chair of Chairs (the senior representative of the magistracy) at the time SKS was DPP. She does not have a high opinion of him. Total careerist was the politest thing she said.
Oh well, that's settled that then. If your mother didn't have a high opinion of him, he's well and truly fucked.
She spent 25+ years as a magistrate. She worked closely with SKS for 4 years. It’s a perspective from someone who knew him well. You can, of course, ignore it if you wish
Cases rising from 1/4 of what was said to be the minimum plausible this Autumn (100k/day) to 1/3 of that level is not a justification for new restrictions. Neither is hospitalisations rising from 1/4 of what was said to be the minimum plausible (2k/day) to just 1/3 of that level.
The whole current discussion of a "need" for new restrictions is so baseless as to be ridiculous. Does it matter so little what the facts are? Folk think it's fine to advocate restricting people's lives willy-nilly, regardless of whether any data says its actually necessary?
The trouble is, right at the start the SAGE brigade held back from lockdowns because they didn't think people in a modern western democracy would do it. Then Italy did.
So, we need to make it clear somehow that we are not prepared to do it again.
We've done it three or four times now (it blurs) and we still cannot be assured that the costs don't out weigh the benefits.
But what do you (and other posters) mean by lockdown? Or are we steadfastly opposed to any mitigation whatsoever, whatever the circumstances?
I mean, the stay at home, do not go out, except to shops once a week, and walk the dog, pubs shut, cafe shut, non food stores shut etc etc.
Most of all I mean schools shut.
That's the lockdown the zealots want again.
Indeed there is a small(ish) but extremely vocal group who want exactly that. A quite extreme attack on liberty that is all too rarely challenged by the media.
You get a sense of desperation from some people practically crying why are we not freaking out over the few deaths per day happening in the UK now.
9 months ago or so either the CMO or CSO said possibly the most sensible words of the entire pandemic "we need to learn to live with Covid".
We have done. Good.
You don't strengthen your case with inaccuracy, do you? It's not a "few deaths a per day"; it's about 1,000 per week, with 223 reported today. I may agree with you on the principle, but not when you misreport data like that.
The COVID deniers on here still don't get it. Lots of hard lessons still to be learnt unfortunately.
If you are that bothered then just lock yourself away permanently. The rest of us will get on with our lives and forget about you.
I am just looking after the welfare of the country as a whole. Looks like you can't see the bigger picture.
Cases rising from 1/4 of what was said to be the minimum plausible this Autumn (100k/day) to 1/3 of that level is not a justification for new restrictions. Neither is hospitalisations rising from 1/4 of what was said to be the minimum plausible (2k/day) to just 1/3 of that level.
The whole current discussion of a "need" for new restrictions is so baseless as to be ridiculous. Does it matter so little what the facts are? Folk think it's fine to advocate restricting people's lives willy-nilly, regardless of whether any data says its actually necessary?
The trouble is, right at the start the SAGE brigade held back from lockdowns because they didn't think people in a modern western democracy would do it. Then Italy did.
So, we need to make it clear somehow that we are not prepared to do it again.
We've done it three or four times now (it blurs) and we still cannot be assured that the costs don't out weigh the benefits.
But what do you (and other posters) mean by lockdown? Or are we steadfastly opposed to any mitigation whatsoever, whatever the circumstances?
I mean, the stay at home, do not go out, except to shops once a week, and walk the dog, pubs shut, cafe shut, non food stores shut etc etc.
Most of all I mean schools shut.
That's the lockdown the zealots want again.
Indeed there is a small(ish) but extremely vocal group who want exactly that. A quite extreme attack on liberty that is all too rarely challenged by the media.
You get a sense of desperation from some people practically crying why are we not freaking out over the few deaths per day happening in the UK now.
9 months ago or so either the CMO or CSO said possibly the most sensible words of the entire pandemic "we need to learn to live with Covid".
We have done. Good.
You don't strengthen your case with inaccuracy, do you? It's not a "few deaths a per day"; it's about 1,000 per week, with 223 reported today. I may agree with you on the principle, but not when you misreport data like that.
The COVID deniers on here still don't get it. Lots of hard lessons still to be learnt unfortunately.
Cases rising from 1/4 of what was said to be the minimum plausible this Autumn (100k/day) to 1/3 of that level is not a justification for new restrictions. Neither is hospitalisations rising from 1/4 of what was said to be the minimum plausible (2k/day) to just 1/3 of that level.
The whole current discussion of a "need" for new restrictions is so baseless as to be ridiculous. Does it matter so little what the facts are? Folk think it's fine to advocate restricting people's lives willy-nilly, regardless of whether any data says its actually necessary?
The trouble is, right at the start the SAGE brigade held back from lockdowns because they didn't think people in a modern western democracy would do it. Then Italy did.
So, we need to make it clear somehow that we are not prepared to do it again.
We've done it three or four times now (it blurs) and we still cannot be assured that the costs don't out weigh the benefits.
But what do you (and other posters) mean by lockdown? Or are we steadfastly opposed to any mitigation whatsoever, whatever the circumstances?
I mean, the stay at home, do not go out, except to shops once a week, and walk the dog, pubs shut, cafe shut, non food stores shut etc etc.
Most of all I mean schools shut.
That's the lockdown the zealots want again.
Indeed there is a small(ish) but extremely vocal group who want exactly that. A quite extreme attack on liberty that is all too rarely challenged by the media.
You get a sense of desperation from some people practically crying why are we not freaking out over the few deaths per day happening in the UK now.
9 months ago or so either the CMO or CSO said possibly the most sensible words of the entire pandemic "we need to learn to live with Covid".
We have done. Good.
You don't strengthen your case with inaccuracy, do you? It's not a "few deaths a per day"; it's about 1,000 per week, with 223 reported today. I may agree with you on the principle, but not when you misreport data like that.
The COVID deniers on here still don't get it. Lots of hard lessons still to be learnt unfortunately.
You were predicting 200,000 cases a day by the summer
He was. Among other ludicrous predictions which I could list but can’t be bothered to. And calling Phillip a covid denier is simply stupid: he might disagree with the policy approach to covid, but he has never denied its existence or potency to my knowledge.
Be afraid. Be very afraid. It's out of control.
Would help if we could get on with the booster programme.
😠😠😠😠
How's it out of control? Is it increasing exponentially?
It's stable and endemic. Learn to live with it and get on with your lives. If few people die each day then that's life, everyone has to go eventually.
Not sure that heading for 50,000 cases a day and 2,000 deaths a week is 'stable'...
Cases rising from 1/4 of what was said to be the minimum plausible this Autumn (100k/day) to 1/3 of that level is not a justification for new restrictions. Neither is hospitalisations rising from 1/4 of what was said to be the minimum plausible (2k/day) to just 1/3 of that level.
The whole current discussion of a "need" for new restrictions is so baseless as to be ridiculous. Does it matter so little what the facts are? Folk think it's fine to advocate restricting people's lives willy-nilly, regardless of whether any data says its actually necessary?
The trouble is, right at the start the SAGE brigade held back from lockdowns because they didn't think people in a modern western democracy would do it. Then Italy did.
So, we need to make it clear somehow that we are not prepared to do it again.
We've done it three or four times now (it blurs) and we still cannot be assured that the costs don't out weigh the benefits.
But what do you (and other posters) mean by lockdown? Or are we steadfastly opposed to any mitigation whatsoever, whatever the circumstances?
I mean, the stay at home, do not go out, except to shops once a week, and walk the dog, pubs shut, cafe shut, non food stores shut etc etc.
Most of all I mean schools shut.
That's the lockdown the zealots want again.
Indeed there is a small(ish) but extremely vocal group who want exactly that. A quite extreme attack on liberty that is all too rarely challenged by the media.
You get a sense of desperation from some people practically crying why are we not freaking out over the few deaths per day happening in the UK now.
9 months ago or so either the CMO or CSO said possibly the most sensible words of the entire pandemic "we need to learn to live with Covid".
We have done. Good.
You don't strengthen your case with inaccuracy, do you? It's not a "few deaths a per day"; it's about 1,000 per week, with 223 reported today. I may agree with you on the principle, but not when you misreport data like that.
The COVID deniers on here still don't get it. Lots of hard lessons still to be learnt unfortunately.
Cases rising from 1/4 of what was said to be the minimum plausible this Autumn (100k/day) to 1/3 of that level is not a justification for new restrictions. Neither is hospitalisations rising from 1/4 of what was said to be the minimum plausible (2k/day) to just 1/3 of that level.
The whole current discussion of a "need" for new restrictions is so baseless as to be ridiculous. Does it matter so little what the facts are? Folk think it's fine to advocate restricting people's lives willy-nilly, regardless of whether any data says its actually necessary?
The trouble is, right at the start the SAGE brigade held back from lockdowns because they didn't think people in a modern western democracy would do it. Then Italy did.
So, we need to make it clear somehow that we are not prepared to do it again.
We've done it three or four times now (it blurs) and we still cannot be assured that the costs don't out weigh the benefits.
But what do you (and other posters) mean by lockdown? Or are we steadfastly opposed to any mitigation whatsoever, whatever the circumstances?
I mean, the stay at home, do not go out, except to shops once a week, and walk the dog, pubs shut, cafe shut, non food stores shut etc etc.
Most of all I mean schools shut.
That's the lockdown the zealots want again.
Indeed there is a small(ish) but extremely vocal group who want exactly that. A quite extreme attack on liberty that is all too rarely challenged by the media.
You get a sense of desperation from some people practically crying why are we not freaking out over the few deaths per day happening in the UK now.
9 months ago or so either the CMO or CSO said possibly the most sensible words of the entire pandemic "we need to learn to live with Covid".
We have done. Good.
You don't strengthen your case with inaccuracy, do you? It's not a "few deaths a per day"; it's about 1,000 per week, with 223 reported today. I may agree with you on the principle, but not when you misreport data like that.
The COVID deniers on here still don't get it. Lots of hard lessons still to be learnt unfortunately.
You were predicting 200,000 cases a day by the summer
He was. Among other ludicrous predictions which I could list but can’t be bothered to. And calling Phillip a covid denier is simply stupid: he might disagree with the policy approach to covid, but he has never denied its existence or potency to my knowledge.
Be afraid. Be very afraid. It's out of control.
Would help if we could get on with the booster programme.
😠😠😠😠
Yes I agree with you on the booster programme- it’s slow and a bit shit. As I have already said.
I certainly don’t agree with you on being very afraid: we have done enough damage to the nation’s mental health already by actively encouraging fearfulness.
And regarding it being “out of control”, last time you said that cases soon started falling, so I don’t think you know whether it’s out of control or otherwise. I don’t consider you much of a forecaster.
Cases rising from 1/4 of what was said to be the minimum plausible this Autumn (100k/day) to 1/3 of that level is not a justification for new restrictions. Neither is hospitalisations rising from 1/4 of what was said to be the minimum plausible (2k/day) to just 1/3 of that level.
The whole current discussion of a "need" for new restrictions is so baseless as to be ridiculous. Does it matter so little what the facts are? Folk think it's fine to advocate restricting people's lives willy-nilly, regardless of whether any data says its actually necessary?
The trouble is, right at the start the SAGE brigade held back from lockdowns because they didn't think people in a modern western democracy would do it. Then Italy did.
So, we need to make it clear somehow that we are not prepared to do it again.
We've done it three or four times now (it blurs) and we still cannot be assured that the costs don't out weigh the benefits.
But what do you (and other posters) mean by lockdown? Or are we steadfastly opposed to any mitigation whatsoever, whatever the circumstances?
I mean, the stay at home, do not go out, except to shops once a week, and walk the dog, pubs shut, cafe shut, non food stores shut etc etc.
Most of all I mean schools shut.
That's the lockdown the zealots want again.
Indeed there is a small(ish) but extremely vocal group who want exactly that. A quite extreme attack on liberty that is all too rarely challenged by the media.
You get a sense of desperation from some people practically crying why are we not freaking out over the few deaths per day happening in the UK now.
9 months ago or so either the CMO or CSO said possibly the most sensible words of the entire pandemic "we need to learn to live with Covid".
We have done. Good.
You don't strengthen your case with inaccuracy, do you? It's not a "few deaths a per day"; it's about 1,000 per week, with 223 reported today. I may agree with you on the principle, but not when you misreport data like that.
The COVID deniers on here still don't get it. Lots of hard lessons still to be learnt unfortunately.
If you are that bothered then just lock yourself away permanently. The rest of us will get on with our lives and forget about you.
I am just looking after the welfare of the country as a whole. Looks like you can't see the bigger picture.
The welfare of the country as a whole is best served by getting on with our lives as normal.
Current death rate is about 0.0002% of the population per day. That is few. For the whole population people are best served living their lives. Even for those who go on to die from Covid, better to have lived their final months than have them locked up like prisoners unable to see their family until Covid ends their lockdown.
Cases rising from 1/4 of what was said to be the minimum plausible this Autumn (100k/day) to 1/3 of that level is not a justification for new restrictions. Neither is hospitalisations rising from 1/4 of what was said to be the minimum plausible (2k/day) to just 1/3 of that level.
The whole current discussion of a "need" for new restrictions is so baseless as to be ridiculous. Does it matter so little what the facts are? Folk think it's fine to advocate restricting people's lives willy-nilly, regardless of whether any data says its actually necessary?
The trouble is, right at the start the SAGE brigade held back from lockdowns because they didn't think people in a modern western democracy would do it. Then Italy did.
So, we need to make it clear somehow that we are not prepared to do it again.
We've done it three or four times now (it blurs) and we still cannot be assured that the costs don't out weigh the benefits.
But what do you (and other posters) mean by lockdown? Or are we steadfastly opposed to any mitigation whatsoever, whatever the circumstances?
I mean, the stay at home, do not go out, except to shops once a week, and walk the dog, pubs shut, cafe shut, non food stores shut etc etc.
Most of all I mean schools shut.
That's the lockdown the zealots want again.
Indeed there is a small(ish) but extremely vocal group who want exactly that. A quite extreme attack on liberty that is all too rarely challenged by the media.
You get a sense of desperation from some people practically crying why are we not freaking out over the few deaths per day happening in the UK now.
9 months ago or so either the CMO or CSO said possibly the most sensible words of the entire pandemic "we need to learn to live with Covid".
We have done. Good.
You don't strengthen your case with inaccuracy, do you? It's not a "few deaths a per day"; it's about 1,000 per week, with 223 reported today. I may agree with you on the principle, but not when you misreport data like that.
The COVID deniers on here still don't get it. Lots of hard lessons still to be learnt unfortunately.
Cases rising from 1/4 of what was said to be the minimum plausible this Autumn (100k/day) to 1/3 of that level is not a justification for new restrictions. Neither is hospitalisations rising from 1/4 of what was said to be the minimum plausible (2k/day) to just 1/3 of that level.
The whole current discussion of a "need" for new restrictions is so baseless as to be ridiculous. Does it matter so little what the facts are? Folk think it's fine to advocate restricting people's lives willy-nilly, regardless of whether any data says its actually necessary?
The trouble is, right at the start the SAGE brigade held back from lockdowns because they didn't think people in a modern western democracy would do it. Then Italy did.
So, we need to make it clear somehow that we are not prepared to do it again.
We've done it three or four times now (it blurs) and we still cannot be assured that the costs don't out weigh the benefits.
But what do you (and other posters) mean by lockdown? Or are we steadfastly opposed to any mitigation whatsoever, whatever the circumstances?
I mean, the stay at home, do not go out, except to shops once a week, and walk the dog, pubs shut, cafe shut, non food stores shut etc etc.
Most of all I mean schools shut.
That's the lockdown the zealots want again.
Indeed there is a small(ish) but extremely vocal group who want exactly that. A quite extreme attack on liberty that is all too rarely challenged by the media.
You get a sense of desperation from some people practically crying why are we not freaking out over the few deaths per day happening in the UK now.
9 months ago or so either the CMO or CSO said possibly the most sensible words of the entire pandemic "we need to learn to live with Covid".
We have done. Good.
You don't strengthen your case with inaccuracy, do you? It's not a "few deaths a per day"; it's about 1,000 per week, with 223 reported today. I may agree with you on the principle, but not when you misreport data like that.
The COVID deniers on here still don't get it. Lots of hard lessons still to be learnt unfortunately.
You were predicting 200,000 cases a day by the summer
He was. Among other ludicrous predictions which I could list but can’t be bothered to. And calling Phillip a covid denier is simply stupid: he might disagree with the policy approach to covid, but he has never denied its existence or potency to my knowledge.
Be afraid. Be very afraid. It's out of control.
Would help if we could get on with the booster programme.
😠😠😠😠
How's it out of control? Is it increasing exponentially?
It's stable and endemic. Learn to live with it and get on with your lives. If few people die each day then that's life, everyone has to go eventually.
Not sure that heading for 50,000 cases a day and 2,000 deaths a week is 'stable'...
Why not?
Ten thousand a week die naturally anyway and Covid is fishing in the same pond or those too stupid to get their vaccine.
Cases rising from 1/4 of what was said to be the minimum plausible this Autumn (100k/day) to 1/3 of that level is not a justification for new restrictions. Neither is hospitalisations rising from 1/4 of what was said to be the minimum plausible (2k/day) to just 1/3 of that level.
The whole current discussion of a "need" for new restrictions is so baseless as to be ridiculous. Does it matter so little what the facts are? Folk think it's fine to advocate restricting people's lives willy-nilly, regardless of whether any data says its actually necessary?
The trouble is, right at the start the SAGE brigade held back from lockdowns because they didn't think people in a modern western democracy would do it. Then Italy did.
So, we need to make it clear somehow that we are not prepared to do it again.
We've done it three or four times now (it blurs) and we still cannot be assured that the costs don't out weigh the benefits.
But what do you (and other posters) mean by lockdown? Or are we steadfastly opposed to any mitigation whatsoever, whatever the circumstances?
I mean, the stay at home, do not go out, except to shops once a week, and walk the dog, pubs shut, cafe shut, non food stores shut etc etc.
Most of all I mean schools shut.
That's the lockdown the zealots want again.
Indeed there is a small(ish) but extremely vocal group who want exactly that. A quite extreme attack on liberty that is all too rarely challenged by the media.
You get a sense of desperation from some people practically crying why are we not freaking out over the few deaths per day happening in the UK now.
9 months ago or so either the CMO or CSO said possibly the most sensible words of the entire pandemic "we need to learn to live with Covid".
We have done. Good.
You don't strengthen your case with inaccuracy, do you? It's not a "few deaths a per day"; it's about 1,000 per week, with 223 reported today. I may agree with you on the principle, but not when you misreport data like that.
The COVID deniers on here still don't get it. Lots of hard lessons still to be learnt unfortunately.
If you are that bothered then just lock yourself away permanently. The rest of us will get on with our lives and forget about you.
I am just looking after the welfare of the country as a whole. Looks like you can't see the bigger picture.
The welfare of the country as a whole is best served by getting on with our lives as normal.
Current death rate is about 0.0002% of the population per day. That is few. For the whole population people are best served living their lives. Even for those who go on to die from Covid, better to have lived their final months than have them locked up like prisoners unable to see their family until Covid ends their lockdown.
0.0002% per day is 0.073% per year. So life expectancy is 1369 years?
Should imagine if we could drain the Black Sea we would find astonishing things. By complete coincidence this came up on my Facebook feed today regarding Japan.
Cases rising from 1/4 of what was said to be the minimum plausible this Autumn (100k/day) to 1/3 of that level is not a justification for new restrictions. Neither is hospitalisations rising from 1/4 of what was said to be the minimum plausible (2k/day) to just 1/3 of that level.
The whole current discussion of a "need" for new restrictions is so baseless as to be ridiculous. Does it matter so little what the facts are? Folk think it's fine to advocate restricting people's lives willy-nilly, regardless of whether any data says its actually necessary?
The trouble is, right at the start the SAGE brigade held back from lockdowns because they didn't think people in a modern western democracy would do it. Then Italy did.
So, we need to make it clear somehow that we are not prepared to do it again.
We've done it three or four times now (it blurs) and we still cannot be assured that the costs don't out weigh the benefits.
But what do you (and other posters) mean by lockdown? Or are we steadfastly opposed to any mitigation whatsoever, whatever the circumstances?
I mean, the stay at home, do not go out, except to shops once a week, and walk the dog, pubs shut, cafe shut, non food stores shut etc etc.
Most of all I mean schools shut.
That's the lockdown the zealots want again.
Indeed there is a small(ish) but extremely vocal group who want exactly that. A quite extreme attack on liberty that is all too rarely challenged by the media.
You get a sense of desperation from some people practically crying why are we not freaking out over the few deaths per day happening in the UK now.
9 months ago or so either the CMO or CSO said possibly the most sensible words of the entire pandemic "we need to learn to live with Covid".
We have done. Good.
You don't strengthen your case with inaccuracy, do you? It's not a "few deaths a per day"; it's about 1,000 per week, with 223 reported today. I may agree with you on the principle, but not when you misreport data like that.
The COVID deniers on here still don't get it. Lots of hard lessons still to be learnt unfortunately.
If you are that bothered then just lock yourself away permanently. The rest of us will get on with our lives and forget about you.
I am just looking after the welfare of the country as a whole. Looks like you can't see the bigger picture.
No you really are not.
When this is all done the numbers who will have died from things other than covid but due to lockdowns and the inability to get timely help will be horrendous.
The numbers of people who will have lost jobs, businesses and livelihoods will be crippling.
The mental issues because of lockdowns and restrictions will swamp our mental health services for years.
The lost education opportunities and the setbacks in children's development will be shameful.
All of those things were, probably, necessary before vaccination. They are not now and you are most certainly not looking out for the welfare of the country by trying to perpetuate those evils.
As far as covid goes this is as good as it gets. We will never be rid of this disease and we have to learn to live with it without destroying our lives in the process. If you can't see that then you are very much part of the problem and not the solution.
Cases rising from 1/4 of what was said to be the minimum plausible this Autumn (100k/day) to 1/3 of that level is not a justification for new restrictions. Neither is hospitalisations rising from 1/4 of what was said to be the minimum plausible (2k/day) to just 1/3 of that level.
The whole current discussion of a "need" for new restrictions is so baseless as to be ridiculous. Does it matter so little what the facts are? Folk think it's fine to advocate restricting people's lives willy-nilly, regardless of whether any data says its actually necessary?
The trouble is, right at the start the SAGE brigade held back from lockdowns because they didn't think people in a modern western democracy would do it. Then Italy did.
So, we need to make it clear somehow that we are not prepared to do it again.
We've done it three or four times now (it blurs) and we still cannot be assured that the costs don't out weigh the benefits.
But what do you (and other posters) mean by lockdown? Or are we steadfastly opposed to any mitigation whatsoever, whatever the circumstances?
I mean, the stay at home, do not go out, except to shops once a week, and walk the dog, pubs shut, cafe shut, non food stores shut etc etc.
Most of all I mean schools shut.
That's the lockdown the zealots want again.
Indeed there is a small(ish) but extremely vocal group who want exactly that. A quite extreme attack on liberty that is all too rarely challenged by the media.
You get a sense of desperation from some people practically crying why are we not freaking out over the few deaths per day happening in the UK now.
9 months ago or so either the CMO or CSO said possibly the most sensible words of the entire pandemic "we need to learn to live with Covid".
We have done. Good.
You don't strengthen your case with inaccuracy, do you? It's not a "few deaths a per day"; it's about 1,000 per week, with 223 reported today. I may agree with you on the principle, but not when you misreport data like that.
The COVID deniers on here still don't get it. Lots of hard lessons still to be learnt unfortunately.
If you are that bothered then just lock yourself away permanently. The rest of us will get on with our lives and forget about you.
I am just looking after the welfare of the country as a whole. Looks like you can't see the bigger picture.
The welfare of the country as a whole is best served by getting on with our lives as normal.
Current death rate is about 0.0002% of the population per day. That is few. For the whole population people are best served living their lives. Even for those who go on to die from Covid, better to have lived their final months than have them locked up like prisoners unable to see their family until Covid ends their lockdown.
0.0002% per day is 0.073% per year. So life expectancy is 1369 years?
If we only had Covid causing deaths then yes.
Quite clearly that is few deaths. As much as some people wish to freak out over it.
Here in the great State of Washington, the highest-paid state public employee - the head coach of the WA State U football time - just got fired for failure to get vaccinated against COVID, now a requirement for ALL state employees.
Good riddance to bad rubbish! Best thing is, because he's being fired for cause, he does NOT get a massive golden parachute, or any other perks.
Note that as of today, 90% of state employees have gotten jabbed. Like the (former) WSU coach, they are now subject to dismissal following appeals process, which will NOT be long & dragged out.
BTW, yours truly just returned from King Co Elections headquarters, where I and a gaggle of fellow observers (including two from WA Secretary of State's office) witness the legally-required Logic and Accuracy test of the county's vote tabulation system. Which it passed with flying colors.
And FYI, while there were more Republicans on hand to observe than usual, there was zero disruption or controversy of any kind. Note that this summer, at the L&A test before the August primary, one of the GOP observers - whom I'd never seen before - made something of a deal of questioning everything that was occurring. Which is OK, except that he was clueless.
And other BTW, compliance with requirement to mask up on the bus ride to & from the elections office was 100%, best I've ever seen in fact. Masks are also required of everyone at KC Elections, staff and observers included.
Note that in WA the governor has ordered masks be worn indoors in offices, stores, restaurants (except when actually eating or drinking), etc. Here in Seattle compliance is pretty close to 100%
Here in the great State of Washington, the highest-paid state public employee - the head coach of the WA State U football time - just got fired for failure to get vaccinated against COVID, now a requirement for ALL state employees.
Good riddance to bad rubbish! Best thing is, because he's being fired for cause, he does NOT get a massive golden parachute, or any other perks.
Note that as of today, 90% of state employees have gotten jabbed. Like the (former) WSU coach, they are now subject to dismissal following appeals process, which will NOT be long & dragged out.
BTW, yours truly just returned from King Co Elections headquarters, where I and a gaggle of fellow observers (including two from WA Secretary of State's office) witness the legally-required Logic and Accuracy test of the county's vote tabulation system. Which it passed with flying colors.
And FYI, while there were more Republicans on hand to observe than usual, there was zero disruption or controversy of any kind. Note that this summer, at the L&A test before the August primary, one of the GOP observers - whom I'd never seen before - made something of a deal of questioning everything that was occurring. Which is OK, except that he was clueless.
And other BTW, compliance with requirement to mask up on the bus ride to & from the elections office was 100%, best I've ever seen in fact. Masks are also required of everyone at KC Elections, staff and observers included.
Note that in WA the governor has ordered masks be worn indoors in offices, stores, restaurants (except when actually eating or drinking), etc. Here in Seattle compliance is pretty close to 100%
On a betting tangent. Lay Djokovic for the Aussie Open. He won't be playing.
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.
He says he wants kids from ‘umble backgrounds like his to get the same chances he did - he’s not going to let them go to grammar school & he’s not going to pay for them to go private like he did. So what’s the plan? ‘Make every comprehensive brilliant’?
You keep perpetuating this myth. Starmer didn't go to a private school. And yes, make every comprehensive brilliant is what we want.
Indeed, the truth is much worse. He went to a grammar. In all seriousness, I'd like to hear his thoughts on grammars. Does he think his school was incidental to his own personal success in life? If not, what aspects of his education does he think we should bring in for comprehensives?
I went to a grammar school. It's what folk who passed the 11+ did back in those days. But I'm totally opposed to them. Contrary to popular myth, they were a brake on social mobility, not a conduit to it. The vast majority of people didn't go to grammar school; the middle classes, and boys, were over-represented. Any good educationalist (as I am/was) knows that the grammar school system constrained social mobility by consigning vast swathes of the age group to secondary modern schools, where expectations and attainment were low.
Today's equivalent of grammar school kids thrive in the comprehensive system, as all the educational data indicates.
Which is why we have so many comprehensive educated surgeons, QCs, partners in city firms, CEOs, top journalists and actors and PMs and top civil servants compared to when we had more grammar schools of course and comprehensive educated pupils dominate our elite with private school pupils nowhere to be seen. Oh wait.....
I don't know why you find this so difficult. If you select out, say, the top 10% to go to private/grammar schools, it's hardly surprising that this top 10% would be disproportionately represented in the elite jobs.
Do you have evidence of this? Or is it an assumption?
I suspect that Independent Schools are a better driver of social mobility than the state system, especially for ethnic minority groups. I have never seen any research data on this, however, and not reeived a response to my suggestion to the Independent Schools Council that they do some work on it.
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.
He says he wants kids from ‘umble backgrounds like his to get the same chances he did - he’s not going to let them go to grammar school & he’s not going to pay for them to go private like he did. So what’s the plan? ‘Make every comprehensive brilliant’?
You keep perpetuating this myth. Starmer didn't go to a private school. And yes, make every comprehensive brilliant is what we want.
Indeed, the truth is much worse. He went to a grammar. In all seriousness, I'd like to hear his thoughts on grammars. Does he think his school was incidental to his own personal success in life? If not, what aspects of his education does he think we should bring in for comprehensives?
I went to a grammar school. It's what folk who passed the 11+ did back in those days. But I'm totally opposed to them. Contrary to popular myth, they were a brake on social mobility, not a conduit to it. The vast majority of people didn't go to grammar school; the middle classes, and boys, were over-represented. Any good educationalist (as I am/was) knows that the grammar school system constrained social mobility by consigning vast swathes of the age group to secondary modern schools, where expectations and attainment were low.
Today's equivalent of grammar school kids thrive in the comprehensive system, as all the educational data indicates.
Which is why we have so many comprehensive educated surgeons, QCs, partners in city firms, CEOs, top journalists and actors and PMs and top civil servants compared to when we had more grammar schools of course and comprehensive educated pupils dominate our elite with private school pupils nowhere to be seen. Oh wait.....
I don't know why you find this so difficult. If you select out, say, the top 10% to go to private/grammar schools, it's hardly surprising that this top 10% would be disproportionately represented in the elite jobs.
Let me try another tack. Imagine a world with no private schools, and no grammar schools - just comprehensives. By your logic, do you think we would then be unable to find surgeons, QCs, CEOs, top civil servants etc. etc? Of course we wouldn't. The talent would still rise to the top, though from a level playing field rather than a rigged system.
I suspect that Independent Schools are a better driver of social mobility than the state system, especially for ethnic minority groups. I have never seen any research data on this, however, and not yet received a response to my suggestion to the Independent Schools Council that they do some work on it.
Cases rising from 1/4 of what was said to be the minimum plausible this Autumn (100k/day) to 1/3 of that level is not a justification for new restrictions. Neither is hospitalisations rising from 1/4 of what was said to be the minimum plausible (2k/day) to just 1/3 of that level.
The whole current discussion of a "need" for new restrictions is so baseless as to be ridiculous. Does it matter so little what the facts are? Folk think it's fine to advocate restricting people's lives willy-nilly, regardless of whether any data says its actually necessary?
The trouble is, right at the start the SAGE brigade held back from lockdowns because they didn't think people in a modern western democracy would do it. Then Italy did.
So, we need to make it clear somehow that we are not prepared to do it again.
We've done it three or four times now (it blurs) and we still cannot be assured that the costs don't out weigh the benefits.
But what do you (and other posters) mean by lockdown? Or are we steadfastly opposed to any mitigation whatsoever, whatever the circumstances?
I mean, the stay at home, do not go out, except to shops once a week, and walk the dog, pubs shut, cafe shut, non food stores shut etc etc.
Most of all I mean schools shut.
That's the lockdown the zealots want again.
Indeed there is a small(ish) but extremely vocal group who want exactly that. A quite extreme attack on liberty that is all too rarely challenged by the media.
You get a sense of desperation from some people practically crying why are we not freaking out over the few deaths per day happening in the UK now.
9 months ago or so either the CMO or CSO said possibly the most sensible words of the entire pandemic "we need to learn to live with Covid".
We have done. Good.
You don't strengthen your case with inaccuracy, do you? It's not a "few deaths a per day"; it's about 1,000 per week, with 223 reported today. I may agree with you on the principle, but not when you misreport data like that.
That is a few.
That is about 1 and a half persons per week per constituency.
Its background noise. Endemic. The kind of deaths that happen on a daily basis anyway without a virus.
A very poor response to my point. 1,000 odd a week is not a 'few' a day.
Yes it is. 🤷♂️
Close to ten thousand die per week even without this virus going around.
A thousand is few. Its entirely liveable. I wouldn't care if we had a thousand a week for the next fifty years, its background noise.
It is also the fat, old and stupid
It is brutal, but it is Darwinian. Perhaps we just have to let Darwin do his thang
How very dare you!
I fit neatly into all those categories and I'm still standing...just.
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.
He says he wants kids from ‘umble backgrounds like his to get the same chances he did - he’s not going to let them go to grammar school & he’s not going to pay for them to go private like he did. So what’s the plan? ‘Make every comprehensive brilliant’?
Maybe it's better for our PMs to be proper posh like your Boris. Simpler then. Just be themselves. None of these tortuous questions or hoops to jump through.
The rich man in his castle, the poor man at his gate, the Lord made them high and lowly, and ordered their estate.
I'm not aware that Boris is proper posh.
Eton makes you a good machiavellian, and gives you some contacts. Not much more.
"Learning to live with" and totally ignoring its existence is, of course, not exactly the same thing.
Nobody who gets vaccinated is ignoring covid's existence.
Aside from vaccination the best thing anyone can do is to improve their own general level of health and fitness.
And wash hands. Ventilate. Cover your mouth and nose whilst sneezing or coughing. Behaviour seems to be "I've been vaccinated so that is it". Full stop. Finito. All of these, as well as getting fitter, were true pre-Covid. And are with endemic Covid.
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.
He says he wants kids from ‘umble backgrounds like his to get the same chances he did - he’s not going to let them go to grammar school & he’s not going to pay for them to go private like he did. So what’s the plan? ‘Make every comprehensive brilliant’?
Maybe it's better for our PMs to be proper posh like your Boris. Simpler then. Just be themselves. None of these tortuous questions or hoops to jump through.
The rich man in his castle, the poor man at his gate, the Lord made them high and lowly, and ordered their estate.
I'm not aware that Boris is proper posh.
Eton makes you a good machiavellian, and gives you some contacts. Not much more.
After I graduated (with a Desmond) and was looking for work I noticed a job advertisement in the Daily Telegraph small ads. "Only Headmasters Conference educated or First Class Honours Graduates need apply".
Cases rising from 1/4 of what was said to be the minimum plausible this Autumn (100k/day) to 1/3 of that level is not a justification for new restrictions. Neither is hospitalisations rising from 1/4 of what was said to be the minimum plausible (2k/day) to just 1/3 of that level.
The whole current discussion of a "need" for new restrictions is so baseless as to be ridiculous. Does it matter so little what the facts are? Folk think it's fine to advocate restricting people's lives willy-nilly, regardless of whether any data says its actually necessary?
The trouble is, right at the start the SAGE brigade held back from lockdowns because they didn't think people in a modern western democracy would do it. Then Italy did.
So, we need to make it clear somehow that we are not prepared to do it again.
We've done it three or four times now (it blurs) and we still cannot be assured that the costs don't out weigh the benefits.
But what do you (and other posters) mean by lockdown? Or are we steadfastly opposed to any mitigation whatsoever, whatever the circumstances?
I mean, the stay at home, do not go out, except to shops once a week, and walk the dog, pubs shut, cafe shut, non food stores shut etc etc.
Most of all I mean schools shut.
That's the lockdown the zealots want again.
Indeed there is a small(ish) but extremely vocal group who want exactly that. A quite extreme attack on liberty that is all too rarely challenged by the media.
You get a sense of desperation from some people practically crying why are we not freaking out over the few deaths per day happening in the UK now.
9 months ago or so either the CMO or CSO said possibly the most sensible words of the entire pandemic "we need to learn to live with Covid".
We have done. Good.
You don't strengthen your case with inaccuracy, do you? It's not a "few deaths a per day"; it's about 1,000 per week, with 223 reported today. I may agree with you on the principle, but not when you misreport data like that.
The COVID deniers on here still don't get it. Lots of hard lessons still to be learnt unfortunately.
If you are that bothered then just lock yourself away permanently. The rest of us will get on with our lives and forget about you.
I am just looking after the welfare of the country as a whole. Looks like you can't see the bigger picture.
No you really are not.
When this is all done the numbers who will have died from things other than covid but due to lockdowns and the inability to get timely help will be horrendous.
The numbers of people who will have lost jobs, businesses and livelihoods will be crippling.
The mental issues because of lockdowns and restrictions will swamp our mental health services for years.
The lost education opportunities and the setbacks in children's development will be shameful.
All of those things were, probably, necessary before vaccination. They are not now and you are most certainly not looking out for the welfare of the country by trying to perpetuate those evils.
As far as covid goes this is as good as it gets. We will never be rid of this disease and we have to learn to live with it without destroying our lives in the process. If you can't see that then you are very much part of the problem and not the solution.
The harms and preventable deaths described above are one thing; the other is the economic damage that has arisen from lockdowns, particularly the increase in national debt. So we avoided the bodies piling up in the hospital corridors scenario, but we may, as a direct consequence of how we have dealt with COVID, have to deal with worse things in the future that lead to more preventable deaths. So it seems to me to be more like short term thinking inspired by desperation and an obsession with safety.
The defining moment of the pandemic for me was the image of British soldiers arriving in Afghanistan on a Hercules plane with Covid masks on. The taliban, by contrast, clearly do not have any interest in masking up, or indeed in Covid at all; along with large parts of the 'developing' world which we hear almost nothing at all about.
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.
He says he wants kids from ‘umble backgrounds like his to get the same chances he did - he’s not going to let them go to grammar school & he’s not going to pay for them to go private like he did. So what’s the plan? ‘Make every comprehensive brilliant’?
Maybe it's better for our PMs to be proper posh like your Boris. Simpler then. Just be themselves. None of these tortuous questions or hoops to jump through.
The rich man in his castle, the poor man at his gate, the Lord made them high and lowly, and ordered their estate.
I'm not aware that Boris is proper posh.
Eton makes you a good machiavellian, and gives you some contacts. Not much more.
After I graduated (with a Desmond) and was looking for work I noticed a job advertisement in the Daily Telegraph small ads. "Only Headmasters Conference educated or First Class Honours Graduates need apply".
So waste of money sending Johnson to Eton then.
I've never seen an ad with Headmasters' Conference in it before.
But now I would probably be blackballed by all the myth protecting Old Etonians .
As for your last question, I'll leave that to OTs to answer.
Personally after my HC School, I deliberately went to an engineering university. I'm really a well-read oik. Though I do quite like the idea that someone considers my school days the equivalent of a First Class Degree.
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.
He says he wants kids from ‘umble backgrounds like his to get the same chances he did - he’s not going to let them go to grammar school & he’s not going to pay for them to go private like he did. So what’s the plan? ‘Make every comprehensive brilliant’?
Maybe it's better for our PMs to be proper posh like your Boris. Simpler then. Just be themselves. None of these tortuous questions or hoops to jump through.
The rich man in his castle, the poor man at his gate, the Lord made them high and lowly, and ordered their estate.
I'm not aware that Boris is proper posh.
Eton makes you a good machiavellian, and gives you some contacts. Not much more.
After I graduated (with a Desmond) and was looking for work I noticed a job advertisement in the Daily Telegraph small ads. "Only Headmasters Conference educated or First Class Honours Graduates need apply".
So waste of money sending Johnson to Eton then.
I've never seen an ad with Headmasters' Conference in it before.
But now I would probably be blackballed by all the myth protecting Old Etonians .
As for your last question, I'll leave that to OTs to answer.
Personally after my HC School, I deliberately went to an engineering university. I'm really a well-read oik.
My HC School. After a sojourn in Canada, at a much, much more prestigious school was a catalyst for my not applying for Oxbridge. It occurred to me that I could be reasonably ordinary. And that that wasn't necessarily a fault.
"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?
So it was unusual, was it. Ok. I'm not au fait with DPP normal practice or with SKS's record in the role. He did it for 5 years so I imagine he trod on some toes. If the charge is he was corrupt and/or incompetent, that's a new one on me. I hope he wasn't, given he's likely our next PM. I hope it's generally felt by those in the know that he was effective in the job. Not the best DPP ever, maybe, but by no means the worst. This would be my hope.
Judging from the things @Cyclefree says, he was probably the best DPP the country ever had.
In the same way that Khrushchev was much the best leader of the Soviet Union, and for the same reason.
That's too cryptic for me. How do you mean cf Khrushchev?
"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?
So it was unusual, was it. Ok. I'm not au fait with DPP normal practice or with SKS's record in the role. He did it for 5 years so I imagine he trod on some toes. If the charge is he was corrupt and/or incompetent, that's a new one on me. I hope he wasn't, given he's likely our next PM. I hope it's generally felt by those in the know that he was effective in the job. Not the best DPP ever, maybe, but by no means the worst. This would be my hope.
Judging from the things @Cyclefree says, he was probably the best DPP the country ever had.
In the same way that Khrushchev was much the best leader of the Soviet Union, and for the same reason.
That's too cryptic for me. How do you mean cf Khrushchev?
"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?
So it was unusual, was it. Ok. I'm not au fait with DPP normal practice or with SKS's record in the role. He did it for 5 years so I imagine he trod on some toes. If the charge is he was corrupt and/or incompetent, that's a new one on me. I hope he wasn't, given he's likely our next PM. I hope it's generally felt by those in the know that he was effective in the job. Not the best DPP ever, maybe, but by no means the worst. This would be my hope.
Judging from the things @Cyclefree says, he was probably the best DPP the country ever had.
In the same way that Khrushchev was much the best leader of the Soviet Union, and for the same reason.
That's too cryptic for me. How do you mean cf Khrushchev?
"Learning to live with" and totally ignoring its existence is, of course, not exactly the same thing.
Nobody who gets vaccinated is ignoring covid's existence.
Aside from vaccination the best thing anyone can do is to improve their own general level of health and fitness.
And wash hands. Ventilate. Cover your mouth and nose whilst sneezing or coughing. Behaviour seems to be "I've been vaccinated so that is it". Full stop. Finito. All of these, as well as getting fitter, were true pre-Covid. And are with endemic Covid.
Indeed.
The lack of encouragement for ventilation has been strange.
Cases rising from 1/4 of what was said to be the minimum plausible this Autumn (100k/day) to 1/3 of that level is not a justification for new restrictions. Neither is hospitalisations rising from 1/4 of what was said to be the minimum plausible (2k/day) to just 1/3 of that level.
The whole current discussion of a "need" for new restrictions is so baseless as to be ridiculous. Does it matter so little what the facts are? Folk think it's fine to advocate restricting people's lives willy-nilly, regardless of whether any data says its actually necessary?
The trouble is, right at the start the SAGE brigade held back from lockdowns because they didn't think people in a modern western democracy would do it. Then Italy did.
So, we need to make it clear somehow that we are not prepared to do it again.
We've done it three or four times now (it blurs) and we still cannot be assured that the costs don't out weigh the benefits.
But what do you (and other posters) mean by lockdown? Or are we steadfastly opposed to any mitigation whatsoever, whatever the circumstances?
I mean, the stay at home, do not go out, except to shops once a week, and walk the dog, pubs shut, cafe shut, non food stores shut etc etc.
Most of all I mean schools shut.
That's the lockdown the zealots want again.
Indeed there is a small(ish) but extremely vocal group who want exactly that. A quite extreme attack on liberty that is all too rarely challenged by the media.
You get a sense of desperation from some people practically crying why are we not freaking out over the few deaths per day happening in the UK now.
9 months ago or so either the CMO or CSO said possibly the most sensible words of the entire pandemic "we need to learn to live with Covid".
We have done. Good.
You don't strengthen your case with inaccuracy, do you? It's not a "few deaths a per day"; it's about 1,000 per week, with 223 reported today. I may agree with you on the principle, but not when you misreport data like that.
The COVID deniers on here still don't get it. Lots of hard lessons still to be learnt unfortunately.
Cases rising from 1/4 of what was said to be the minimum plausible this Autumn (100k/day) to 1/3 of that level is not a justification for new restrictions. Neither is hospitalisations rising from 1/4 of what was said to be the minimum plausible (2k/day) to just 1/3 of that level.
The whole current discussion of a "need" for new restrictions is so baseless as to be ridiculous. Does it matter so little what the facts are? Folk think it's fine to advocate restricting people's lives willy-nilly, regardless of whether any data says its actually necessary?
The trouble is, right at the start the SAGE brigade held back from lockdowns because they didn't think people in a modern western democracy would do it. Then Italy did.
So, we need to make it clear somehow that we are not prepared to do it again.
We've done it three or four times now (it blurs) and we still cannot be assured that the costs don't out weigh the benefits.
But what do you (and other posters) mean by lockdown? Or are we steadfastly opposed to any mitigation whatsoever, whatever the circumstances?
I mean, the stay at home, do not go out, except to shops once a week, and walk the dog, pubs shut, cafe shut, non food stores shut etc etc.
Most of all I mean schools shut.
That's the lockdown the zealots want again.
Indeed there is a small(ish) but extremely vocal group who want exactly that. A quite extreme attack on liberty that is all too rarely challenged by the media.
You get a sense of desperation from some people practically crying why are we not freaking out over the few deaths per day happening in the UK now.
9 months ago or so either the CMO or CSO said possibly the most sensible words of the entire pandemic "we need to learn to live with Covid".
We have done. Good.
You don't strengthen your case with inaccuracy, do you? It's not a "few deaths a per day"; it's about 1,000 per week, with 223 reported today. I may agree with you on the principle, but not when you misreport data like that.
The COVID deniers on here still don't get it. Lots of hard lessons still to be learnt unfortunately.
You were predicting 200,000 cases a day by the summer
He was. Among other ludicrous predictions which I could list but can’t be bothered to. And calling Phillip a covid denier is simply stupid: he might disagree with the policy approach to covid, but he has never denied its existence or potency to my knowledge.
Be afraid. Be very afraid. It's out of control.
Would help if we could get on with the booster programme.
😠😠😠😠
Yes I agree with you on the booster programme- it’s slow and a bit shit. As I have already said.
I certainly don’t agree with you on being very afraid: we have done enough damage to the nation’s mental health already by actively encouraging fearfulness.
And regarding it being “out of control”, last time you said that cases soon started falling, so I don’t think you know whether it’s out of control or otherwise. I don’t consider you much of a forecaster.
I don't think cases are falling now ...
What does that have to do with what I wrote? Your posts are becoming ever more illogical.
Comments
It is brutal, but it is Darwinian. Perhaps we just have to let Darwin do his thang
Covid is like a striker hanging around at the goal mouth. It goes for the easy tap-ins. Especially now post-vaccines almost entirely those who are dying from it are either those too fucking stupid to get an injection, or those whose time was up anyway.
They are all planning not to vote Labour this time. I think one still will when push comes to shove.
In my family Starmer is minus 5 or 6 from the 6 Labour voters who still voted Labour even in 2019.
I think Chesterfield will be lost at the next GE
Where is the public health information campaign?
Non-existent.
We've lived in a non-stop public health information campaign for the past 21 months. Its not like people haven't been told they need to go and get vaccinated.
Hand washing, ventilation, etc. are still easy wins. So is encouraging folk to lose weight, take exercise, etc. Cover your mouth when coughing, sneezing.
None of these have ceased to be true.
From people's behaviour you would think they had.
Would help if we could get on with the booster programme.
😠😠😠😠
It has been a nice addition to the WFH setup. I got to drop in and overhear a chemistry lesson.
Had a kids party at the weekend, from 10 children - 2 covid positive no shows and a third tested positive after the party. In retrospect a 'locked in the room party' isn't really that smart in a pandemic (file that in the big book of pandemic learnings)
I certainly don’t agree with you on being very afraid: we have done enough damage to the nation’s mental health already by actively encouraging fearfulness.
And regarding it being “out of control”, last time you said that cases soon started falling, so I don’t think you know whether it’s out of control or otherwise. I don’t consider you much of a forecaster.
It's stable and endemic. Learn to live with it and get on with your lives. If few people die each day then that's life, everyone has to go eventually.
Current death rate is about 0.0002% of the population per day. That is few. For the whole population people are best served living their lives. Even for those who go on to die from Covid, better to have lived their final months than have them locked up like prisoners unable to see their family until Covid ends their lockdown.
Ten thousand a week die naturally anyway and Covid is fishing in the same pond or those too stupid to get their vaccine.
edit: yet.
When this is all done the numbers who will have died from things other than covid but due to lockdowns and the inability to get timely help will be horrendous.
The numbers of people who will have lost jobs, businesses and livelihoods will be crippling.
The mental issues because of lockdowns and restrictions will swamp our mental health services for years.
The lost education opportunities and the setbacks in children's development will be shameful.
All of those things were, probably, necessary before vaccination. They are not now and you are most certainly not looking out for the welfare of the country by trying to perpetuate those evils.
As far as covid goes this is as good as it gets. We will never be rid of this disease and we have to learn to live with it without destroying our lives in the process. If you can't see that then you are very much part of the problem and not the solution.
Quite clearly that is few deaths. As much as some people wish to freak out over it.
A jab from eg an insulin pen can be almost indetectable, and can be done in a fraction of a second.
That was much less the case 20 years ago.
Here in the great State of Washington, the highest-paid state public employee - the head coach of the WA State U football time - just got fired for failure to get vaccinated against COVID, now a requirement for ALL state employees.
Good riddance to bad rubbish! Best thing is, because he's being fired for cause, he does NOT get a massive golden parachute, or any other perks.
Note that as of today, 90% of state employees have gotten jabbed. Like the (former) WSU coach, they are now subject to dismissal following appeals process, which will NOT be long & dragged out.
BTW, yours truly just returned from King Co Elections headquarters, where I and a gaggle of fellow observers (including two from WA Secretary of State's office) witness the legally-required Logic and Accuracy test of the county's vote tabulation system. Which it passed with flying colors.
And FYI, while there were more Republicans on hand to observe than usual, there was zero disruption or controversy of any kind. Note that this summer, at the L&A test before the August primary, one of the GOP observers - whom I'd never seen before - made something of a deal of questioning everything that was occurring. Which is OK, except that he was clueless.
And other BTW, compliance with requirement to mask up on the bus ride to & from the elections office was 100%, best I've ever seen in fact. Masks are also required of everyone at KC Elections, staff and observers included.
Note that in WA the governor has ordered masks be worn indoors in offices, stores, restaurants (except when actually eating or drinking), etc. Here in Seattle compliance is pretty close to 100%
Lay Djokovic for the Aussie Open. He won't be playing.
Aside from vaccination the best thing anyone can do is to improve their own general level of health and fitness.
I suspect that Independent Schools are a better driver of social mobility than the state system, especially for ethnic minority groups. I have never seen any research data on this, however, and not reeived a response to my suggestion to the Independent Schools Council that they do some work on it.
I fit neatly into all those categories and I'm still standing...just.
Eton makes you a good machiavellian, and gives you some contacts. Not much more.
Behaviour seems to be "I've been vaccinated so that is it". Full stop. Finito.
All of these, as well as getting fitter, were true pre-Covid. And are with endemic Covid.
So waste of money sending Johnson to Eton then?
The harms and preventable deaths described above are one thing; the other is the economic damage that has arisen from lockdowns, particularly the increase in national debt. So we avoided the bodies piling up in the hospital corridors scenario, but we may, as a direct consequence of how we have dealt with COVID, have to deal with worse things in the future that lead to more preventable deaths. So it seems to me to be more like short term thinking inspired by desperation and an obsession with safety.
The defining moment of the pandemic for me was the image of British soldiers arriving in Afghanistan on a Hercules plane with Covid masks on. The taliban, by contrast, clearly do not have any interest in masking up, or indeed in Covid at all; along with large parts of the 'developing' world which we hear almost nothing at all about.
But now I would probably be blackballed by all the myth protecting Old Etonians
As for your last question, I'll leave that to OTs to answer.
Personally after my HC School, I deliberately went to an engineering university. I'm really a well-read oik. Though I do quite like the idea that someone considers my school days the equivalent of a First Class Degree.
It occurred to me that I could be reasonably ordinary. And that that wasn't necessarily a fault.
He was shit. But he was much less of a shit than Lenin, Stalin or Brezhnev, and he didn’t cause the implosion of the Soviet Union like Gorbachev.
The lack of encouragement for ventilation has been strange.