Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Starmer’s successor looks set to be one of these three – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited October 29 in General
imageStarmer’s successor looks set to be one of these three – politicalbetting.com

Forget current betting favourite and twice leadership failure Andy Burnham the next party leader will surely come from the above trio who have all come to the fore in the past month.

Read the full story here

«13456710

Comments

  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,573
    They all look the same to me
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,573
    Seriously, Phillipson and reeves could be twins
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 69,704
    IshmaelZ said:

    Seriously, Phillipson and reeves could be twins

    I could see that. Non-identical obviously, but sibling level.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,376
    edited October 29
    If Starmer goes mid Parliament it is hard to see anyone but his Shadow Chancellor Reeves replacing him. She is competent, intelligent as an Oxford educated former economist and capable in the Commons as she showed on Wednesday and reasonably centrist.

    Remember too the last time a Leader of the Opposition was replaced before being allowed to fight a general election, IDS in 2003, he was replaced by his Shadow Chancellor, Michael Howard. However Howard got 32.4% in 2005 which was little different to what the Tories were polling under IDS anyway. I don't think Reeves would really make much difference to Starmer to be honest, both are on the centrist wing of Labour and both tried to overturn Brexit by backing a Peoples' Vote. Similarly IDS and Howard were very much on the same spectrum on the Eurosceptic right of the Tory party.

    If Labour lose the next general election and Burnham is elected as an MP again then he will be a contender for Labour leader, having opposed a second referendum on Brexit and not being too close to Corbyn, until then I agree he is out of the picture
  • FishingFishing Posts: 3,022
    edited October 29
    I doubt Starmer will go before the election unless the polling turns from the poor to the catastrophic again. I don't see him having the humility or self-awareness that decision would need.

    As for the replacements, each might do a better job, but does any of them have the Blair touch which has been needed to win an election against the Conservatives over the last 40 years? I'm not sure.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,675
    To be honest, an all woman shortlist might be the only way Labour elects a female leader. And even then I'm not convinced that they wouldn't mess it up!
  • FishingFishing Posts: 3,022
    tlg86 said:

    To be honest, an all woman shortlist might be the only way Labour elects a female leader. And even then I'm not convinced that they wouldn't mess it up!

    Unfortunately such shortlists are unbelievably and outrageously sexist and tokenism rarely produces the best outcomes.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 36,476
    kle4 said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Seriously, Phillipson and reeves could be twins

    I could see that. Non-identical obviously, but sibling level.
    Good to see the thread kicked off with such incisive political analysis
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,376
    edited October 29
    Fishing said:

    I doubt Starmer will go before the election unless the polling turns from the poor to the catastrophic again. I don't see him having the humility or self-awareness that decision would need.

    As for the replacements, each might do a better job, but does any of them have the Blair touch which has been needed to win an election against the Conservatives over the last 40 years? I'm not sure.

    Labour can win without a Blairite leader. However it would probably rely on Welsh and Scottish votes ie the way they used to get in pre Blair as Harold Wilson won narrowly in 1964 and won most seats in Feb 1974 with the backing of Scottish and Welsh MPs despite Home and Heath winning majorities in England.

    To win in England again though and get a majority rather than hung parliament and absent a recovery in Scotland then yes Labour would likely need a Blairite leader again. Blair being the only Labour leader ever to have won more than 1 majority in England
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 36,476
    HYUFD said:

    If Starmer goes mid Parliament it is hard to see anyone but his Shadow Chancellor Reeves replacing him. She is competent, intelligent as an Oxford educated former economist and capable in the Commons as she showed on Wednesday and reasonably centrist.

    Remember too the last time a Leader of the Opposition was replaced before being allowed to fight a general election, IDS in 2003, he was replaced by his Shadow Chancellor, Michael Howard. However Howard got 32.4% in 2005 which was little different to what the Tories were polling under IDS anyway. I don't think Reeves would really make much difference to Starmer to be honest, both are on the centrist wing of Labour and both tried to overturn Brexit by backing a Peoples' Vote. Similarly IDS and Howard were very much on the same spectrum on the Eurosceptic right of the Tory party.

    If Labour lose the next general election and Burnham is elected as an MP again then he will be a contender for Labour leader, having opposed a second referendum on Brexit and not being too close to Corbyn, until then I agree he is out of the picture

    I’m not even sure he wants the job and, in any event, he has morphed into Mr North and would have to reinvent himself again to pitch for national leader.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 10,739
    12th?
  • FishingFishing Posts: 3,022
    I can only remember one politician who resigned because they admitted they weren't up to the job. From memory it was a Labour spokeswoman in the 2000s. Virtually all try to brazen it out in the hope that things will get better.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,573
    IanB2 said:

    kle4 said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Seriously, Phillipson and reeves could be twins

    I could see that. Non-identical obviously, but sibling level.
    Good to see the thread kicked off with such incisive political analysis
    They could split the fringe vote
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,009
    As to Starmer walking away - no-one gets to that level in politics without iron clad self belief.

    It was that cracking which caused Portillo's self destruct in his leadership campaign.

    I can't see Starmer suddenly losing his - which means that he thinks he is the best person for the job.
  • IshmaelZ said:

    IanB2 said:

    kle4 said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Seriously, Phillipson and reeves could be twins

    I could see that. Non-identical obviously, but sibling level.
    Good to see the thread kicked off with such incisive political analysis
    They could split the fringe vote
    In a parting of ways?
  • FPP

    There is a statistical difference between the YouGov opinion polls and the others.

    The difference is that YouGov have Labour 3% lower, and the Greens 3% higher, based on October polls.

    The other pollster which have a significant difference is Redfield & Wilton Strategies which have Labour and the Lib Dems around 2% higher than the others (taking into account YouGov's adjustment).
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 36,476
    Fishing said:

    I can only remember one politician who resigned because they admitted they weren't up to the job. From memory it was a Labour spokeswoman in the 2000s. Virtually all try to brazen it out in the hope that things will get better.

    In most jobs, incompetence is absolute, whereas in politics it is merely relative.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 15,403
    Actually watched QT last night. Yes, Phillipson was good, but her opposition was dire. Lucy Frazer repeated slogans, and the Dragon's Den lady wasn't politically coherent (not her job). Bridget was largely backed up by 2 extremely knowledgeable panellists. She really couldn't help but look good.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 25,318
    dixiedean said:

    Fishing said:

    I can only remember one politician who resigned because they admitted they weren't up to the job. From memory it was a Labour spokeswoman in the 2000s. Virtually all try to brazen it out in the hope that things will get better.

    Estelle Morris.
    And Kevin Keegan of course.

    "At the end of the day, at this level, I'm just a bit short."

    Immortal words - and the mark of the man really.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 14,834
    dixiedean said:

    Fishing said:

    I can only remember one politician who resigned because they admitted they weren't up to the job. From memory it was a Labour spokeswoman in the 2000s. Virtually all try to brazen it out in the hope that things will get better.

    Estelle Morris.
    And she was probably fine as far as it went. Education secretaries seem to be loathed universally by the teaching profession, and that must be discouraging.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,189
    The advantage of betting on this market is you'll probably get a result before voting on the next PM market.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,376
    edited October 29
    dixiedean said:

    Fishing said:

    I can only remember one politician who resigned because they admitted they weren't up to the job. From memory it was a Labour spokeswoman in the 2000s. Virtually all try to brazen it out in the hope that things will get better.

    Estelle Morris.
    To be fair to Estelle Morris she had been a teacher in an inner city comp in Coventry for years before becoming an MP, becoming Head of Sixth Form.

    Yes she may not have been up to moving from junior minister to Cabinet level and she had the strength to admit it to herself and resign but I doubt many of her Cabinet colleagues would have been able to control a class of rowdy teenagers as she used to do either
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,923
    None of them give the impression of being the next Tony:

    Prime Minister after the election:
    2019 Tory
    2017 Tory
    2015 Tory
    2010 Tory
    2005 Tony
    2001 Tony
    1997 Tony
    1992 Tory
    1987 Tory
    1983 Tory
    1979 Tory
    1974 LABOUR!
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 15,257
    Bridget Phillipson has taken a while to come to prominence, but she is still young despite being in parliament since 2010.

    There was a cluster of women representing north east seats who entered parliament back then. I remember thinking at the time that they were well placed to make an impression.

    If the next Labour leadership election comes after the GE, then Phillipson will be a real contender. If Starmer quits early, Reeves is in the box seat.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 10,739


    I am not criticising batch cooking, it is a great idea that works for many. Can the people who say all ready meals are bad explain what is bad about the dishes I have linked to? Open to persuasion here but simply proclaiming something does not make it true.

    To me they look fine, especially as a base for 2 meals with some fresh ingredients and a pork chop.

    Look a little pricey, for what they are, though.

    Adding half of a corn on the cob from the freezer would enhance nicely.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,573

    IshmaelZ said:

    IanB2 said:

    kle4 said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Seriously, Phillipson and reeves could be twins

    I could see that. Non-identical obviously, but sibling level.
    Good to see the thread kicked off with such incisive political analysis
    They could split the fringe vote
    In a parting of ways?
    With a bang
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,376
    edited October 29
    Sandpit said:

    None of them give the impression of being the next Tony:

    Prime Minister after the election:
    2019 Tory
    2017 Tory
    2015 Tory
    2010 Tory
    2005 Tony
    2001 Tony
    1997 Tony
    1992 Tory
    1987 Tory
    1983 Tory
    1979 Tory
    1974 LABOUR!

    And even in 1974 as I said earlier Wilson never won a majority in England, it was Scottish and Welsh Labour MPs who put him in No 10.

    Starmer may well rely on the SNP and Welsh Labour MPs therefore to get to power
  • Rayner statement is actually pretty decent, fair play from her
  • pingping Posts: 1,409
    I like Nandy, but she does come across as rather cowering in interviews.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 25,318
    HYUFD said:

    Fishing said:

    I doubt Starmer will go before the election unless the polling turns from the poor to the catastrophic again. I don't see him having the humility or self-awareness that decision would need.

    As for the replacements, each might do a better job, but does any of them have the Blair touch which has been needed to win an election against the Conservatives over the last 40 years? I'm not sure.

    Labour can win without a Blairite leader. However it would probably rely on Welsh and Scottish votes ie the way they used to get in pre Blair as Harold Wilson won narrowly in 1964 and won most seats in Feb 1974 with the backing of Scottish and Welsh MPs despite Home and Heath winning majorities in England.

    To win in England again though and get a majority rather than hung parliament and absent a recovery in Scotland then yes Labour would likely need a Blairite leader again. Blair being the only Labour leader ever to have won more than 1 majority in England
    Not sure a Blairite leader would make much difference unless that's just code for a politician with the big persona and top top communication skills of your actual Tony Blair.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 2,944

    A few months ago it was de rigueur to bemoan the paucity of talent in the Labour shadow cabinet and wonder at the lack of alternatives to Starmer.

    My suggestion is that this is evidence that Starmer's repair job to the Labour party is working, but it still has some way to go. It's possible that in another couple of years he will have developed a strong shadow cabinet that begins to look like a credible government-in-waiting.

    Maybe they could go for a Jacinda-style shortcut and successfully swap leaders before the next election, but I think that the task of winning a Labour majority is so large that it would be a mistake.

    The best Labour can credibly hope for is for Starmer to play a Michael Howard role of steadying the ship after the Corbyn debacle, chip away at the landslide majority of the government, and develop a stronger next generation so the next leader has more to work with.

    Yes, it's interesting isn't it? Reeves is now a star, apparently - though she's been around a good while. Phillipson's rise is even more spectacular - from 'never heard of her' to 'star in the making' within a couple of days. And our very own HYUFD rates Thomas-Symonds highly, though he is yet to make enough of an impression for my liking.

    Weighing up the three great offices of state we have Sunak, Patel and Truss vs. Reeves, Thomas-Symonds and Nandy. I know which threesome (please don't misinterpret) I'd go for.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 3,858
    Nandy is too lightweight, and Phillipson is still largely untested. I agree Reeves is the real deal and should now be the favourite.

    Meanwhile, I was pleased to see that Rayner has finally apologised for Toryscumgate. Shame it took actual threats for her to see why her comments were unhelpful, but at least she's learning.
  • Labour poll lead nailed on by the end of the year, Keir's job is working and he is doing it well, quietly in the background. Best Labour leader since Blair
  • FishingFishing Posts: 3,022
    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    Fishing said:

    I doubt Starmer will go before the election unless the polling turns from the poor to the catastrophic again. I don't see him having the humility or self-awareness that decision would need.

    As for the replacements, each might do a better job, but does any of them have the Blair touch which has been needed to win an election against the Conservatives over the last 40 years? I'm not sure.

    Labour can win without a Blairite leader. However it would probably rely on Welsh and Scottish votes ie the way they used to get in pre Blair as Harold Wilson won narrowly in 1964 and won most seats in Feb 1974 with the backing of Scottish and Welsh MPs despite Home and Heath winning majorities in England.

    To win in England again though and get a majority rather than hung parliament and absent a recovery in Scotland then yes Labour would likely need a Blairite leader again. Blair being the only Labour leader ever to have won more than 1 majority in England
    Not sure a Blairite leader would make much difference unless that's just code for a politician with the big persona and top top communication skills of your actual Tony Blair.
    Yes, I meant a Blair-like political genius, not his politics, which were pretty standard and utterly unoriginal.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,189

    Labour poll lead nailed on by the end of the year, Keir's job is working and he is doing it well, quietly in the background. Best Labour leader since Blair

    I've got 57 squillion quid on that. Thanks for the tip.
  • Labour poll lead nailed on by the end of the year, Keir's job is working and he is doing it well, quietly in the background. Best Labour leader since Blair

    I've got 57 squillion quid on that. Thanks for the tip.
    That's a lot more than I've got on.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,923
    143 for Bangladesh to beat the WIndies. A much better performance with the bat by the Carribean team, than they could muster against England last week.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 11,957
    MattW said:


    I am not criticising batch cooking, it is a great idea that works for many. Can the people who say all ready meals are bad explain what is bad about the dishes I have linked to? Open to persuasion here but simply proclaiming something does not make it true.

    To me they look fine, especially as a base for 2 meals with some fresh ingredients and a pork chop.

    Look a little pricey, for what they are, though.

    Adding half of a corn on the cob from the freezer would enhance nicely.
    Thanks. On the price depends how you look at it.

    £3.50, little planning and no cooking time vs say £1 for ingredients plus ensuring have a constant wide variety of fresh ingredients plus 10-30 mins per meal.

    For me, that amount of extra cash is irrelevant vs the time. For others it will be different.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 27,519
    edited October 29
    IshmaelZ said:

    IanB2 said:

    kle4 said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Seriously, Phillipson and reeves could be twins

    I could see that. Non-identical obviously, but sibling level.
    Good to see the thread kicked off with such incisive political analysis
    They could split the fringe vote
    Or something hair raising could bob up.

    I would rule Phillipson our for the next contest as too junior.

    I wouldn't rule out Rosena or Jess either. Angela is also a fighter and the scum comment not so much a problem with the party selectorate.

    I don't think it sexist that they are all women, I just don't see any male rivals with the same calibre.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,675
    I see we’re at the “pushing a firm line” stage of the argument over fishing.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 3,022
    Foxy said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IanB2 said:

    kle4 said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Seriously, Phillipson and reeves could be twins

    I could see that. Non-identical obviously, but sibling level.
    Good to see the thread kicked off with such incisive political analysis
    They could split the fringe vote
    Or something hair raising could bob up.

    I would rule Phillipson our for the next contest as too junior.

    I wouldn't rule out Rosena or Jess either. Angela is also a fighter and the scum comment not so much a problem with the party selectorate.

    I don't think it sexist that they are all women, I just don't see any male rivals with the same calibre.
    Fine of course if that's the reason, unlike say Biden's VP pick.

    But Labour's wokeness means there will always be a question mark over them.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 27,519
    Fishing said:

    I can only remember one politician who resigned because they admitted they weren't up to the job. From memory it was a Labour spokeswoman in the 2000s. Virtually all try to brazen it out in the hope that things will get better.

    It is a dangerous precedent. If incompetence were a bar, who would be left from the current Cabinet? No one springs to mind...
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 15,257
    Foxy said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IanB2 said:

    kle4 said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Seriously, Phillipson and reeves could be twins

    I could see that. Non-identical obviously, but sibling level.
    Good to see the thread kicked off with such incisive political analysis
    They could split the fringe vote
    Or something hair raising could bob up.

    I would rule Phillipson our for the next contest as too junior.

    I wouldn't rule out Rosena or Jess either. Angela is also a fighter and the scum comment not so much a problem with the party selectorate.

    I don't think it sexist that they are all women, I just don't see any male rivals with the same calibre.
    If you are including Rosena and Jess then you can't rule out the Geordie Lass for being too junior.

    But yes, a pool of talented women who could contest a leadership election.

    Of the men, then EdM is probably top of the pile, and I'm sure he won't be standing.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,923
    Will the Labour membership vote for a woman? Every single woman who has stood for a membership vote for leader, has been beaten by every man in the contest.
  • FossFoss Posts: 437
    Of the three, Phillipson looks to have the toughest re-election campaign. If Starmer reaches the point where he decided to walk away before the next election then it’s possible she’ll be too busy working to hold her seat to be able to commit the time needed to run for leadership.
  • Don't think Rachel Reeves trounced Boris at PMQ's on Wednesday as Labour were represented by Ed Milliband. He shouted a lot but really just reminded us why Cameron beat him in 2015.
    Reeves gave a competent response to the budget but anyone could have done better than Annaliese Dodds' lamentable effort last year. Reeves has the handicap of having a terrible voice.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 11,957
    Fishing said:

    Foxy said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IanB2 said:

    kle4 said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Seriously, Phillipson and reeves could be twins

    I could see that. Non-identical obviously, but sibling level.
    Good to see the thread kicked off with such incisive political analysis
    They could split the fringe vote
    Or something hair raising could bob up.

    I would rule Phillipson our for the next contest as too junior.

    I wouldn't rule out Rosena or Jess either. Angela is also a fighter and the scum comment not so much a problem with the party selectorate.

    I don't think it sexist that they are all women, I just don't see any male rivals with the same calibre.
    Fine of course if that's the reason, unlike say Biden's VP pick.

    But Labour's wokeness means there will always be a question mark over them.
    I think it is the other way around. Labour have never selected a female leader, there should be question marks about whether the men were really the best options or whether the selectorate was biased.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,189
    Sandpit said:

    Will the Labour membership vote for a woman? Every single woman who has stood for a membership vote for leader, has been beaten by every man in the contest.

    It wouldn't surprise me if in the next contest there's three women (maybe the three named) who lose to one man who's stood for it.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 36,476
    The latest from Prof Spectre of ZOE:

    UK is heading towards the 100,000 new cases/day mark, with the proportion of those double vaxxed now up to 29%. Probably more than one on fifth of us has covid right now. Numbers in ICU up 15% from last week. Recent cases are still mostly children although the 35-55 age group is now also on the rise. Some signs that the overall increases are starting to level off.

    Our hopsitalisation rate is higher than most European countries, confirming the picture of the case statistics that the UK is now doing relatively poorly. Our double Vac rate is now middle of the pack. In Romania and Latvia hospitals are heading toward being overwhelmed by admissions. He suggests Portugal is doing the best and may soon achieve herd immunity.

    He thinks ZOE is picking up more edge cases than the government confirmed data. Personally I wonder about the likely bias in people completing Zoe which surely by now leans toward the symptomatic?

    He concedes that the greater restrictions in Scotland and Wales don’t seem to be making any difference to their data.

    About 2 million a week are becoming eligible for boosters, and the booster programme isn’t keeping up.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,189

    Fishing said:

    Foxy said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IanB2 said:

    kle4 said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Seriously, Phillipson and reeves could be twins

    I could see that. Non-identical obviously, but sibling level.
    Good to see the thread kicked off with such incisive political analysis
    They could split the fringe vote
    Or something hair raising could bob up.

    I would rule Phillipson our for the next contest as too junior.

    I wouldn't rule out Rosena or Jess either. Angela is also a fighter and the scum comment not so much a problem with the party selectorate.

    I don't think it sexist that they are all women, I just don't see any male rivals with the same calibre.
    Fine of course if that's the reason, unlike say Biden's VP pick.

    But Labour's wokeness means there will always be a question mark over them.
    I think it is the other way around. Labour have never selected a female leader, there should be question marks about whether the men were really the best options or whether the selectorate was biased.
    They chose Corbyn and Burnham ahead of Cooper. There are no question marks there.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 17,831
    IanB2 said:

    The latest from Prof Spectre of ZOE:

    UK is heading towards the 100,000 new cases/day mark, with the proportion of those double vaxxed now up to 29%. Probably more than one on fifth of us has covid right now. Numbers in ICU up 15% from last week. Recent cases are still mostly children although the 35-55 age group is now also on the rise. Some signs that the overall increases are starting to level off.

    Our hopsitalisation rate is higher than most European countries, confirming the picture of the case statistics that the UK is now doing relatively poorly. Our double Vac rate is now middle of the pack. In Romania and Latvia hospitals are heading toward being overwhelmed by admissions. He suggests Portugal is doing the best and may soon achieve herd immunity.

    He thinks ZOE is picking up more edge cases than the government confirmed data. Personally I wonder about the likely bias in people completing Zoe which surely by now leans toward the symptomatic?

    He concedes that the greater restrictions in Scotland and Wales don’t seem to be making any difference to their data.

    About 2 million a week are becoming eligible for boosters, and the booster programme isn’t keeping up.

    Apart from that, how does he think it's going?
  • felixfelix Posts: 13,714

    Don't think Rachel Reeves trounced Boris at PMQ's on Wednesday as Labour were represented by Ed Milliband. He shouted a lot but really just reminded us why Cameron beat him in 2015.
    Reeves gave a competent response to the budget but anyone could have done better than Annaliese Dodds' lamentable effort last year. Reeves has the handicap of having a terrible voice.

    I'm old enough to remember the time Starmer was viewed as nailed on in terms of com petence, leadership, electability..... On this site they go through potential Labour leaders like they're going out of fashion..oh hold on.. I see.....
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 17,831

    Sandpit said:

    Will the Labour membership vote for a woman? Every single woman who has stood for a membership vote for leader, has been beaten by every man in the contest.

    It wouldn't surprise me if in the next contest there's three women (maybe the three named) who lose to one man who's stood for it.
    That would surprise me.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 13,782
    edited October 29
    "Student, 21, jumped to her death from bridge over the Menai Strait after getting university email wrongly telling her she had failed her exams

    Mared Foulkes, 21, of Anglesey, was studying pharmacy at Cardiff University
    One email from the university incorrectly stated she had failed her exams
    Ms Foulkes had already taken her own life before the mistake was rectified"

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10142029/Student-fell-death-bridge-getting-email-WRONGLY-telling-failed-exams.html
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 15,403
    Blimey. Just discovered Ruth Kelly is 53.
    Younger than the PM and LOTO. Seems like a character from a different age.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 2,737
    Mike you missed Jo Rowling off your shortlist!
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 11,957
    Sandpit said:

    Will the Labour membership vote for a woman? Every single woman who has stood for a membership vote for leader, has been beaten by every man in the contest.

    Finally an admission from the right that status quo/traditional selection processes dont automatically pick the best person for the job. Hope that will be remembered for the next positive discrimination discussions, the Labour Party is a great example to use.
  • Fysics_TeacherFysics_Teacher Posts: 5,535
    Fishing said:

    I can only remember one politician who resigned because they admitted they weren't up to the job. From memory it was a Labour spokeswoman in the 2000s. Virtually all try to brazen it out in the hope that things will get better.

    Not just a spokeswoman: she was the Secretary of State for Education (or whatever the department was called at the time).
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,009
    edited October 29

    IanB2 said:

    The latest from Prof Spectre of ZOE:

    UK is heading towards the 100,000 new cases/day mark, with the proportion of those double vaxxed now up to 29%. Probably more than one on fifth of us has covid right now. Numbers in ICU up 15% from last week. Recent cases are still mostly children although the 35-55 age group is now also on the rise. Some signs that the overall increases are starting to level off.

    Our hopsitalisation rate is higher than most European countries, confirming the picture of the case statistics that the UK is now doing relatively poorly. Our double Vac rate is now middle of the pack. In Romania and Latvia hospitals are heading toward being overwhelmed by admissions. He suggests Portugal is doing the best and may soon achieve herd immunity.

    He thinks ZOE is picking up more edge cases than the government confirmed data. Personally I wonder about the likely bias in people completing Zoe which surely by now leans toward the symptomatic?

    He concedes that the greater restrictions in Scotland and Wales don’t seem to be making any difference to their data.

    About 2 million a week are becoming eligible for boosters, and the booster programme isn’t keeping up.

    Apart from that, how does he think it's going?
    The booster program is just above an average of 300K per day. It seems to be in a pattern of start low on Monday Sunday (reported) and build towards the next weekend.

    https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/vaccinations#card-people_who_have_received_booster_or_3rd_dose_vaccinations_by_report_date

    300*7 = ......

  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 36,476
    edited October 29
    dixiedean said:

    Actually watched QT last night. Yes, Phillipson was good, but her opposition was dire. Lucy Frazer repeated slogans, and the Dragon's Den lady wasn't politically coherent (not her job). Bridget was largely backed up by 2 extremely knowledgeable panellists. She really couldn't help but look good.

    That was a remarkably wise choice, considering that the alternative way of spending your evening was finding out that next to no-one who has ever f**ked SeanT is willing to give it a second go…even for money.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 55,632
    Unless he goes on to win, then who knows. Saying that, the time is probably right, 50 years after the good lady herself was elected Tory leader.
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 4,714

    MattW said:


    I am not criticising batch cooking, it is a great idea that works for many. Can the people who say all ready meals are bad explain what is bad about the dishes I have linked to? Open to persuasion here but simply proclaiming something does not make it true.

    To me they look fine, especially as a base for 2 meals with some fresh ingredients and a pork chop.

    Look a little pricey, for what they are, though.

    Adding half of a corn on the cob from the freezer would enhance nicely.
    Thanks. On the price depends how you look at it.

    £3.50, little planning and no cooking time vs say £1 for ingredients plus ensuring have a constant wide variety of fresh ingredients plus 10-30 mins per meal.

    For me, that amount of extra cash is irrelevant vs the time. For others it will be different.
    Looking at random at the Teriyaki chicken noodles. Too much sugar. Too few calories. 391 kcal is not a main meal. And 27g is not "high protein" you should be aiming to eat a gram per kilo of bodyweight and most people will get most of that in their main meal.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 7,022
    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    If Starmer goes mid Parliament it is hard to see anyone but his Shadow Chancellor Reeves replacing him. She is competent, intelligent as an Oxford educated former economist and capable in the Commons as she showed on Wednesday and reasonably centrist.

    Remember too the last time a Leader of the Opposition was replaced before being allowed to fight a general election, IDS in 2003, he was replaced by his Shadow Chancellor, Michael Howard. However Howard got 32.4% in 2005 which was little different to what the Tories were polling under IDS anyway. I don't think Reeves would really make much difference to Starmer to be honest, both are on the centrist wing of Labour and both tried to overturn Brexit by backing a Peoples' Vote. Similarly IDS and Howard were very much on the same spectrum on the Eurosceptic right of the Tory party.

    If Labour lose the next general election and Burnham is elected as an MP again then he will be a contender for Labour leader, having opposed a second referendum on Brexit and not being too close to Corbyn, until then I agree he is out of the picture

    I’m not even sure he wants the job and, in any event, he has morphed into Mr North and would have to reinvent himself again to pitch for national leader.
    Would Starmer permit Burnham to stand as prospective MP in any constituency, given that Burnham would represent an obvious challenger to his leadership?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 33,930

    IanB2 said:

    The latest from Prof Spectre of ZOE:

    UK is heading towards the 100,000 new cases/day mark, with the proportion of those double vaxxed now up to 29%. Probably more than one on fifth of us has covid right now. Numbers in ICU up 15% from last week. Recent cases are still mostly children although the 35-55 age group is now also on the rise. Some signs that the overall increases are starting to level off.

    Our hopsitalisation rate is higher than most European countries, confirming the picture of the case statistics that the UK is now doing relatively poorly. Our double Vac rate is now middle of the pack. In Romania and Latvia hospitals are heading toward being overwhelmed by admissions. He suggests Portugal is doing the best and may soon achieve herd immunity.

    He thinks ZOE is picking up more edge cases than the government confirmed data. Personally I wonder about the likely bias in people completing Zoe which surely by now leans toward the symptomatic?

    He concedes that the greater restrictions in Scotland and Wales don’t seem to be making any difference to their data.

    About 2 million a week are becoming eligible for boosters, and the booster programme isn’t keeping up.

    Apart from that, how does he think it's going?
    The booster program is just above an average of 300K per day. It seems to be in a pattern of start low on Monday (reported) and build to weekend.

    https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/vaccinations#card-people_who_have_received_booster_or_3rd_dose_vaccinations_by_report_date

    300*7 = ......

    On that topic...
    Interesting study showing that #SARSCoV2 breakthrough infection of vaccinated people strongly boosts neutralizing antibody titers, with extent of boosting similar to Moderna booster vaccines
    https://twitter.com/jbloom_lab/status/1453833007098302467
  • StockyStocky Posts: 7,022
    "the demolition of BoJo by Rachel Reeves at PMQs on Wednesday" ??
  • FishingFishing Posts: 3,022
    Foxy said:

    Fishing said:

    I can only remember one politician who resigned because they admitted they weren't up to the job. From memory it was a Labour spokeswoman in the 2000s. Virtually all try to brazen it out in the hope that things will get better.

    It is a dangerous precedent. If incompetence were a bar, who would be left from the current Cabinet? No one springs to mind...
    I don't think that's true at all. Of course we can disagree, but personally I'd keep Liz Truss, Javid, Kwasi at least. Maybe Gove in some role - not sure what though.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 36,476
    Stocky said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    If Starmer goes mid Parliament it is hard to see anyone but his Shadow Chancellor Reeves replacing him. She is competent, intelligent as an Oxford educated former economist and capable in the Commons as she showed on Wednesday and reasonably centrist.

    Remember too the last time a Leader of the Opposition was replaced before being allowed to fight a general election, IDS in 2003, he was replaced by his Shadow Chancellor, Michael Howard. However Howard got 32.4% in 2005 which was little different to what the Tories were polling under IDS anyway. I don't think Reeves would really make much difference to Starmer to be honest, both are on the centrist wing of Labour and both tried to overturn Brexit by backing a Peoples' Vote. Similarly IDS and Howard were very much on the same spectrum on the Eurosceptic right of the Tory party.

    If Labour lose the next general election and Burnham is elected as an MP again then he will be a contender for Labour leader, having opposed a second referendum on Brexit and not being too close to Corbyn, until then I agree he is out of the picture

    I’m not even sure he wants the job and, in any event, he has morphed into Mr North and would have to reinvent himself again to pitch for national leader.
    Would Starmer permit Burnham to stand as prospective MP in any constituency, given that Burnham would represent an obvious challenger to his leadership?
    TBF the way the party works, it wouldn’t necessarily be under his control.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 31,884
    Haven't been following it v closely aside from the apology headline and soundbite.

    Have all those Graun columnists who rowed in to support Rayner when she made the remarks likewise apologised, a la Private Eye?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 44,457

    Fishing said:

    I can only remember one politician who resigned because they admitted they weren't up to the job. From memory it was a Labour spokeswoman in the 2000s. Virtually all try to brazen it out in the hope that things will get better.

    Not just a spokeswoman: she was the Secretary of State for Education (or whatever the department was called at the time).
    Secretary of State for Education, Education, Education.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,189

    Sandpit said:

    Will the Labour membership vote for a woman? Every single woman who has stood for a membership vote for leader, has been beaten by every man in the contest.

    Finally an admission from the right that status quo/traditional selection processes dont automatically pick the best person for the job. Hope that will be remembered for the next positive discrimination discussions, the Labour Party is a great example to use.
    If the prior processes are not picking the right person for the job then the solution is to tackle the discrimination so that going forwards the best person is chosen.

    "Positive discrimination" is still discrimination, it doesn't do that.
  • Update, still holding firm on my Labour lead poll bet by end of the year, hope you will all send me good luck in that it pays out!
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 2,737
    Fishing said:

    Foxy said:

    Fishing said:

    I can only remember one politician who resigned because they admitted they weren't up to the job. From memory it was a Labour spokeswoman in the 2000s. Virtually all try to brazen it out in the hope that things will get better.

    It is a dangerous precedent. If incompetence were a bar, who would be left from the current Cabinet? No one springs to mind...
    I don't think that's true at all. Of course we can disagree, but personally I'd keep Liz Truss, Javid, Kwasi at least. Maybe Gove in some role - not sure what though.
    Zahawi is another obvious omission.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 33,930
    In answer to @rcs1000 (?) about Facebook just being a bunch of dumb algorithms ...
    https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/10/facebook-papers-democracy-election-zuckerberg/620478/
    ...One argument goes something like this: Facebook’s algorithms aren’t magic, its ad targeting isn’t even that good, and most people aren’t that stupid.

    All of this may be true, but that shouldn’t be reassuring. An algorithm may just be a big dumb means to an end, a clunky way of maneuvering a massive, dynamic network toward a desired outcome. But Facebook’s enormous size gives it tremendous, unstable power. Facebook takes whole populations of people, pushes them toward radicalism, and then steers the radicalized toward one another. For those who found themselves in the “Stop the Steal” corners of Facebook in November and December of last year, the enthusiasm, the sense of solidarity, must have been overwhelming and thrilling. Facebook had taken warped reality and distributed it at scale....
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 17,831

    IanB2 said:

    The latest from Prof Spectre of ZOE:

    UK is heading towards the 100,000 new cases/day mark, with the proportion of those double vaxxed now up to 29%. Probably more than one on fifth of us has covid right now. Numbers in ICU up 15% from last week. Recent cases are still mostly children although the 35-55 age group is now also on the rise. Some signs that the overall increases are starting to level off.

    Our hopsitalisation rate is higher than most European countries, confirming the picture of the case statistics that the UK is now doing relatively poorly. Our double Vac rate is now middle of the pack. In Romania and Latvia hospitals are heading toward being overwhelmed by admissions. He suggests Portugal is doing the best and may soon achieve herd immunity.

    He thinks ZOE is picking up more edge cases than the government confirmed data. Personally I wonder about the likely bias in people completing Zoe which surely by now leans toward the symptomatic?

    He concedes that the greater restrictions in Scotland and Wales don’t seem to be making any difference to their data.

    About 2 million a week are becoming eligible for boosters, and the booster programme isn’t keeping up.

    Apart from that, how does he think it's going?
    The booster program is just above an average of 300K per day. It seems to be in a pattern of start low on Monday Sunday (reported) and build towards the next weekend.

    https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/vaccinations#card-people_who_have_received_booster_or_3rd_dose_vaccinations_by_report_date

    300*7 = ......

    Although the number for 21/10/2021 (612,192) seems to be skewing the average up. A lot.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 7,022

    Bridget Phillipson has taken a while to come to prominence, but she is still young despite being in parliament since 2010.

    There was a cluster of women representing north east seats who entered parliament back then. I remember thinking at the time that they were well placed to make an impression.

    If the next Labour leadership election comes after the GE, then Phillipson will be a real contender. If Starmer quits early, Reeves is in the box seat.

    He won't though. So Burnham may possibly come into the frame. I'd also say Rayner has a stronger chance than the three listed in the header because I think she would do well in the membership vote, but I'm not certain of that.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 44,457

    Sandpit said:

    Will the Labour membership vote for a woman? Every single woman who has stood for a membership vote for leader, has been beaten by every man in the contest.

    It wouldn't surprise me if in the next contest there's three women (maybe the three named) who lose to one man who's stood for it.
    Oh, God. Burgon.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 11,957

    Sandpit said:

    Will the Labour membership vote for a woman? Every single woman who has stood for a membership vote for leader, has been beaten by every man in the contest.

    Finally an admission from the right that status quo/traditional selection processes dont automatically pick the best person for the job. Hope that will be remembered for the next positive discrimination discussions, the Labour Party is a great example to use.
    If the prior processes are not picking the right person for the job then the solution is to tackle the discrimination so that going forwards the best person is chosen.

    "Positive discrimination" is still discrimination, it doesn't do that.
    Yes of course, if you could magically get rid of all the discriminatory biases and processes in the real world that would be fantastic. Also magical, it ain't gonna happen. Human brains are built on using bias and pattern recognition very heavily, more than we use rationality.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 2,806

    MattW said:


    I am not criticising batch cooking, it is a great idea that works for many. Can the people who say all ready meals are bad explain what is bad about the dishes I have linked to? Open to persuasion here but simply proclaiming something does not make it true.

    To me they look fine, especially as a base for 2 meals with some fresh ingredients and a pork chop.

    Look a little pricey, for what they are, though.

    Adding half of a corn on the cob from the freezer would enhance nicely.
    Thanks. On the price depends how you look at it.

    £3.50, little planning and no cooking time vs say £1 for ingredients plus ensuring have a constant wide variety of fresh ingredients plus 10-30 mins per meal.

    For me, that amount of extra cash is irrelevant vs the time. For others it will be different.
    Looking at random at the Teriyaki chicken noodles. Too much sugar. Too few calories. 391 kcal is not a main meal. And 27g is not "high protein" you should be aiming to eat a gram per kilo of bodyweight and most people will get most of that in their main meal.
    Portion sizes are sometimes way out, small as well as large, as that is how the traffic light nutrition system is reckoned, is it not? We had some all bran clusters (or whatever they're called) sent in error in a delivery. Taste very sweet, but the nutrition breakdown doesn't look that bad for sugar per portion. But the reckoned portion size is tiny. You see it also in e.g. 'sharing bag' sweets, where the portion size for malteasers is (exaggerate, but maybe not by much) two malteasers...
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 2,806

    Sandpit said:

    Will the Labour membership vote for a woman? Every single woman who has stood for a membership vote for leader, has been beaten by every man in the contest.

    It wouldn't surprise me if in the next contest there's three women (maybe the three named) who lose to one man who's stood for it.
    Oh, God. Burgon.
    I wouldn't rate Burgon above demigod, personally :wink:
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 33,930
    Fishing said:

    Foxy said:

    Fishing said:

    I can only remember one politician who resigned because they admitted they weren't up to the job. From memory it was a Labour spokeswoman in the 2000s. Virtually all try to brazen it out in the hope that things will get better.

    It is a dangerous precedent. If incompetence were a bar, who would be left from the current Cabinet? No one springs to mind...
    I don't think that's true at all. Of course we can disagree, but personally I'd keep Liz Truss, Javid, Kwasi at least. Maybe Gove in some role - not sure what though.
    Court jester ...team mascot ?
    Not sure about either of those, tbf.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 2,737
    Selebian said:

    Sandpit said:

    Will the Labour membership vote for a woman? Every single woman who has stood for a membership vote for leader, has been beaten by every man in the contest.

    It wouldn't surprise me if in the next contest there's three women (maybe the three named) who lose to one man who's stood for it.
    Oh, God. Burgon.
    I wouldn't rate Burgon above demigod, personally :wink:
    Judging by his Twitter feed Gary Neville has his eyes on Starmer’s job.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,189

    Sandpit said:

    Will the Labour membership vote for a woman? Every single woman who has stood for a membership vote for leader, has been beaten by every man in the contest.

    Finally an admission from the right that status quo/traditional selection processes dont automatically pick the best person for the job. Hope that will be remembered for the next positive discrimination discussions, the Labour Party is a great example to use.
    If the prior processes are not picking the right person for the job then the solution is to tackle the discrimination so that going forwards the best person is chosen.

    "Positive discrimination" is still discrimination, it doesn't do that.
    Yes of course, if you could magically get rid of all the discriminatory biases and processes in the real world that would be fantastic. Also magical, it ain't gonna happen. Human brains are built on using bias and pattern recognition very heavily, more than we use rationality.
    No need for magic, just tackling the real issues.

    "Positive discrimination" is no better at finding the right person for the job, if you're still discriminating against the people you were discriminating against then the 'right person' still suffers because they're being discriminated against. Promoting someone else from the same group because "they all look the same" to you isn't a fix.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 17,831
    Fishing said:

    Foxy said:

    Fishing said:

    I can only remember one politician who resigned because they admitted they weren't up to the job. From memory it was a Labour spokeswoman in the 2000s. Virtually all try to brazen it out in the hope that things will get better.

    It is a dangerous precedent. If incompetence were a bar, who would be left from the current Cabinet? No one springs to mind...
    I don't think that's true at all. Of course we can disagree, but personally I'd keep Liz Truss, Javid, Kwasi at least. Maybe Gove in some role - not sure what though.
    Is that Kwasi "Fixed price tariffs will be honoured" Kwarteng?
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 3,791

    Update, still holding firm on my Labour lead poll bet by end of the year, hope you will all send me good luck in that it pays out!

    There have been several close calls the last couple of weeks. The Smarkets by 2 Nov market I'm on for No at 1/3, but I'd say odds on just about for a lead this year,
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 33,930
    moonshine said:

    Fishing said:

    Foxy said:

    Fishing said:

    I can only remember one politician who resigned because they admitted they weren't up to the job. From memory it was a Labour spokeswoman in the 2000s. Virtually all try to brazen it out in the hope that things will get better.

    It is a dangerous precedent. If incompetence were a bar, who would be left from the current Cabinet? No one springs to mind...
    I don't think that's true at all. Of course we can disagree, but personally I'd keep Liz Truss, Javid, Kwasi at least. Maybe Gove in some role - not sure what though.
    Zahawi is another obvious omission.
    No, I'd probably keep him.
  • Stocky said:

    "the demolition of BoJo by Rachel Reeves at PMQs on Wednesday" ??

    Did he think this was real?

    "The all-woman shadow cabinet she had selected had taken their seats in the Commons that first Wednesday after the leadership win. She well recalled standing up at PMQs and beginning with “What a f*ing mess these boys have got this country into, Mr Speaker” as she waved at Johnson, Gove and Sunak. It was a master move that would get Labour finally noticed by the public announced the press in unison as they roared on Angela and Yvette taking it in turns to pound the hapless, floundering fag end government day after day. "
    https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2021/10/27/december-2024-a-tongue-in-cheek-prediction/
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 11,957

    MattW said:


    I am not criticising batch cooking, it is a great idea that works for many. Can the people who say all ready meals are bad explain what is bad about the dishes I have linked to? Open to persuasion here but simply proclaiming something does not make it true.

    To me they look fine, especially as a base for 2 meals with some fresh ingredients and a pork chop.

    Look a little pricey, for what they are, though.

    Adding half of a corn on the cob from the freezer would enhance nicely.
    Thanks. On the price depends how you look at it.

    £3.50, little planning and no cooking time vs say £1 for ingredients plus ensuring have a constant wide variety of fresh ingredients plus 10-30 mins per meal.

    For me, that amount of extra cash is irrelevant vs the time. For others it will be different.
    Looking at random at the Teriyaki chicken noodles. Too much sugar. Too few calories. 391 kcal is not a main meal. And 27g is not "high protein" you should be aiming to eat a gram per kilo of bodyweight and most people will get most of that in their main meal.
    Thanks for the analysis. For a middle aged person losing weight 391 kcal as the lighter of main meals feels in the right range for me, only too low if it is every meal, whereas in a week there might be a couple of pub/restaurant meals that need offsetting too. Obviously depends on age, exercise, height and gender.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 51,936
    Our #COVID19 Infection Survey shows in the most recent week, infections

    ▪️ increased in England, now at a similar level to early 2021
    ▪️ increased in Northern Ireland.

    Trends were uncertain in Wales and there were early signs of an increase in Scotland ow.ly/zGLx50GAXsy


    https://twitter.com/ons/status/1454040643198758916?s=21

    “One in”:
    Wales: 40
    England: 50
    Scotland: 75
    NI: 75
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 2,142
    FPT

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    Facemasks really doing the job in Wales then with its highest infection rate in the UK. Almost conclude they are worse than useless in a real world setting

    Copy/paste from a previous thread:

    I've been thinking about how to best explain why the "Wales / England, masks / maskless" comparisons don't work. It's a car analogy.

    Person A: "Using winter tyres in the summer uses more petrol, so it's better to shift to summer tyres when it's warm."
    Person B: "Ah-ha, but I'm using winter tyres here in Norfolk and you're using summer tyres there in Braemar, and my fuel efficiency is the same as yours! Therefore it makes no difference!"
    Person A: "Yes, because I'm forever driving up steep hills, and you're not. It would be worse again for me if I was using winter tyres"

    Obviously, this vignette also proves nothing, but try to keep it in mind when you think about bulk comparisons between two different places implementing different policies.

    The claim is that masks lower infection rates compared to not using them.
    The claim is NOT that masks make your infection rates lower than unmasked places.

    It's a subtlety that can easily be lost in a debate, but it's a vital one for any system where multiple independent variables control a dependent variable (which is say basically everything in the real world).
    While that's true the argument doesn't help us to work out how useful facemasks are, and therefore whether they should be the focus of public policy.

    What we can say is that one of two things must be true. Either enforcing face mask usage at this stage of the pandemic results in more transmission, or there are other differences between Wales and England that have more of an effect on transmission than face mask usage.

    I would suggest that public policy would be better directed towards those other differences, working out what they are and making the most of them to reduce transmission.
    If those other differences are, for example, crowded housing then the prospects for meaningful change in the short term are nil. You decide first if you want to apply policy pressure on a perceived problem, then you decide what measures are available in the timescale. Lower density housing is probably desirable but a decades-long goal. If you want something on the days-scale, masks are part of the debate.
    Mask adherence lowers transmission (to about half?? check that, I might be misremembering).
    Yes. The differences between Wales and England might be structural differences that we can't do anything about in the short term, or they might not be. How could we work out whether they are structural and essentially fixed?

    We could look at the differences between England and Wales over time. If there were structural, fixed, differences then we would expect to see consistently higher transmission in Wales than in England. My impression is that the contrary is the case.

    Consequently your argument that the other differences, which produce a higher transmission rate in Wales are fixed is rejected.
    Input variables interact: structural issues may only manifest under certain social or environmental conditions. I'll give a toy example which is oversimplified, but illustrates what I mean.
    If you have a large commuting population, say Aberdare residents commuting to Cardiff offices. Suppose opening train windows reduces transmission dramatically. During periods of weather when having train windows open is comfortable or even desirable, you're knocking out a commuting pillar of the transmission. When the weather gets colder, the passengers close the windows and boom, transmissions spike.

    This effect wouldn't show up at all if your work/residence/travel arrangements were different (e.g. where I live there are no trains at all, in other parts of the country commuting by bike is easier - I don't recommend cycling from Cardiff to Aberdare).

    Structural factors are not always active. And if you think about it, this is the point of masks. They interrupt the transmission that comes from people crowding into the same bus/train/shop/pub etc. If everyone wfh and had everything delivered and didn't mix in any way, masks would be pretty pointless. That structure of society isn't realistic or desirable, so masks have a realistic role if we want to take advantage of them.
    I'd suggest that improving ventilation is one of those things that isn't structural that we might want to concentrate public policy onto rather than face masks.

    It also seems unlikely that there will be significantly stronger effects from inadequate ventilation or commuting in Wales than in England.

    What this discussion tells me is that we do not know why there is higher transmission in Wales, and I think we ought to find that out before mandating face masks that we know are not the most important factor at play.

    We're no longer in the emergency phase of the pandemic where we simply have to do anything and everything in the hope that something works. We've had nearly two years to gather and analyse evidence and we have the advantage from vaccines, so we can act more slowly on the basis of good evidence.
    No, you missed the whole point, sorry.
    The issue in my example (and please remember it's a toy example not a serious attempt at explaining the transmission differences) isn't ventilation per se. It's the fact that structural effects may be masked (har har) by environmental ones part of the time.
    To put it another way, the way that Welsh people live may, in bulk, be different to the way people in England live. And the way those differences respond to environmental changes (e.g. weather) will cause spikes and troughs at different times, even if the weather in England and Wales is identical (which, again, it isn't).

    The headline is that there are MANY independent variables and ONE dependent variable. Trying to explain the dependent variable with reference to a SINGLE independent variable leads to trouble.
    It's like trying to explain that being poorly educated makes you a Conservative voter. Well, there might be an education factor in there, but the correlation is confounded by a hugely overbearing age factor, along with the fact that many more people go to university these days. It's age driving it. And there's even a chance that age is masking the fact that higher education makes you MORE Conservative (I'm not saying it does, but it's possible).

    In short, correlation doesn't imply causation.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 11,957

    Sandpit said:

    Will the Labour membership vote for a woman? Every single woman who has stood for a membership vote for leader, has been beaten by every man in the contest.

    Finally an admission from the right that status quo/traditional selection processes dont automatically pick the best person for the job. Hope that will be remembered for the next positive discrimination discussions, the Labour Party is a great example to use.
    If the prior processes are not picking the right person for the job then the solution is to tackle the discrimination so that going forwards the best person is chosen.

    "Positive discrimination" is still discrimination, it doesn't do that.
    Yes of course, if you could magically get rid of all the discriminatory biases and processes in the real world that would be fantastic. Also magical, it ain't gonna happen. Human brains are built on using bias and pattern recognition very heavily, more than we use rationality.
    No need for magic, just tackling the real issues.

    "Positive discrimination" is no better at finding the right person for the job, if you're still discriminating against the people you were discriminating against then the 'right person' still suffers because they're being discriminated against. Promoting someone else from the same group because "they all look the same" to you isn't a fix.
    What a random non sequitur. All woman and all men do not look the same time to me.
  • pingping Posts: 1,409

    Update, still holding firm on my Labour lead poll bet by end of the year, hope you will all send me good luck in that it pays out!

    With respect - and sorry if I’ve missed it - but have you elaborated on which bookie took your £3500 stake?

    Or was it a private bet?
  • Fishing said:

    Foxy said:

    Fishing said:

    I can only remember one politician who resigned because they admitted they weren't up to the job. From memory it was a Labour spokeswoman in the 2000s. Virtually all try to brazen it out in the hope that things will get better.

    It is a dangerous precedent. If incompetence were a bar, who would be left from the current Cabinet? No one springs to mind...
    I don't think that's true at all. Of course we can disagree, but personally I'd keep Liz Truss, Javid, Kwasi at least. Maybe Gove in some role - not sure what though.
    Is that Kwasi "Fixed price tariffs will be honoured" Kwarteng?
    Some caller on the radio the other day said Kwasi like Elmer Fudd saying Crazy.

    It's now how I say it in my head.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 55,632

    Our #COVID19 Infection Survey shows in the most recent week, infections

    ▪️ increased in England, now at a similar level to early 2021
    ▪️ increased in Northern Ireland.

    Trends were uncertain in Wales and there were early signs of an increase in Scotland ow.ly/zGLx50GAXsy


    https://twitter.com/ons/status/1454040643198758916?s=21

    “One in”:
    Wales: 40
    England: 50
    Scotland: 75
    NI: 75

    Still no sign of any surge in prevalence amongst the older cohorts. Surprising after all that sensationalist news about the vaccine effectiveness suddenly wearing off in a few short weeks.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 2,142
    Alba is circling the drain. Won't exist by the end of 2023.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 2,806
    moonshine said:

    Selebian said:

    Sandpit said:

    Will the Labour membership vote for a woman? Every single woman who has stood for a membership vote for leader, has been beaten by every man in the contest.

    It wouldn't surprise me if in the next contest there's three women (maybe the three named) who lose to one man who's stood for it.
    Oh, God. Burgon.
    I wouldn't rate Burgon above demigod, personally :wink:
    Judging by his Twitter feed Gary Neville has his eyes on Starmer’s job.
    Maybe, after Burgon has one day in charge (he's the Allerdyce figure, no offence to either intended). Takes over fom uninspiring leader (Hodgson/Starmer). Highly rated, apparently loved by the British English public. Creates a good team. Comes close, even takes the lead, but loses in the end to a cynical but stronger opponent.

    Yep, I can see that.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 31,884

    Sandpit said:

    Will the Labour membership vote for a woman? Every single woman who has stood for a membership vote for leader, has been beaten by every man in the contest.

    Finally an admission from the right that status quo/traditional selection processes dont automatically pick the best person for the job. Hope that will be remembered for the next positive discrimination discussions, the Labour Party is a great example to use.
    If the prior processes are not picking the right person for the job then the solution is to tackle the discrimination so that going forwards the best person is chosen.

    "Positive discrimination" is still discrimination, it doesn't do that.
    Yes of course, if you could magically get rid of all the discriminatory biases and processes in the real world that would be fantastic. Also magical, it ain't gonna happen. Human brains are built on using bias and pattern recognition very heavily, more than we use rationality.
    No need for magic, just tackling the real issues.

    "Positive discrimination" is no better at finding the right person for the job, if you're still discriminating against the people you were discriminating against then the 'right person' still suffers because they're being discriminated against. Promoting someone else from the same group because "they all look the same" to you isn't a fix.
    What if the organisation has never had a minority C-level executive. And it interviews two candidates for one such role and they are exactly equal and one is from the minority whose inequality you want to address and one is from the prevailing majority.

    What is wrong with positive discrimination then?
This discussion has been closed.