Following a fall earlier this year my nan is against her and my grandad's wishes in a care home. Care workers have a choice whether to be vaccinated or not. She has no choice but to be there.
Throughout the pandemic my nan wouldn't let anyone into her home apart from essential people whom she'd keep a distance from, until after the vaccines were rolled out. Now she's compelled to be in a home with people who are potentially unvaccinated putting her life at risk?
If care workers don't give enough of a shit about the people they're caring for that they will get vaccinated to protect them, then I don't think they should be in the care sector.
I realise that we are dealing with probabilities here but vaccinated people can still pass the virus on. I know you don't like unvaccinated people - are you letting this feeling overrule logic? Just sayin'.
I think you have hit on something here. The situation has changed from when these rules were first thought of. At that time it was thought that vaccine would grant immunity. It doesn't. As an alternative it was thought that it significantly reduced the risk of the virus being passed on because you would have a lower viral load. I do not think, with Delta, that there is any compelling evidence of that. What the vaccines do is reduce the risk to the person vaccinated and all sensible people should be vaccinated as a result.
But can we actually say that you being vaccinated makes someone else safer? I am not sure. Maybe. Those who are not vaccinated are, I think, still more likely to become infected and therefore more likely, statistically, to infect others. Whether that risk is both robust and material needs looked at again.
You many not be sure, but the scientific community is sure that vaccination makes others safer.
I have put up a hypothesis that would lead to that conclusion but I put the same challenge to you as to Philip. Have we confirmed this since delta became dominant? It seems to infect people with vaccines as readily as those without, albeit they have much less risk of becoming severely ill.
Shadow Scotland Secretary Ian Murray calls on Kwasi Kwarteng to apologise for comments made on Sky News on Wednesday about Kathryn Stone's future as the independent parliamentary commissioner for standards.
Following a fall earlier this year my nan is against her and my grandad's wishes in a care home. Care workers have a choice whether to be vaccinated or not. She has no choice but to be there.
Throughout the pandemic my nan wouldn't let anyone into her home apart from essential people whom she'd keep a distance from, until after the vaccines were rolled out. Now she's compelled to be in a home with people who are potentially unvaccinated putting her life at risk?
If care workers don't give enough of a shit about the people they're caring for that they will get vaccinated to protect them, then I don't think they should be in the care sector.
I realise that we are dealing with probabilities here but vaccinated people can still pass the virus on. I know you don't like unvaccinated people - are you letting this feeling overrule logic? Just sayin'.
I think you have hit on something here. The situation has changed from when these rules were first thought of. At that time it was thought that vaccine would grant immunity. It doesn't. As an alternative it was thought that it significantly reduced the risk of the virus being passed on because you would have a lower viral load. I do not think, with Delta, that there is any compelling evidence of that. What the vaccines do is reduce the risk to the person vaccinated and all sensible people should be vaccinated as a result.
But can we actually say that you being vaccinated makes someone else safer? I am not sure. Maybe. Those who are not vaccinated are, I think, still more likely to become infected and therefore more likely, statistically, to infect others. Whether that risk is both robust and material needs looked at again.
Someone posted some stats the other day (yesterday?) showing reduced transmission for vaxxed people. Would be interested in the detail of that because your understanding is the same as mine - that being vaxxed doesn't significantly reduce the transmission rate (save for viral load, same as someone with the virus but asymptomatic).
It matters a lot in the care homes debate because if it doesn't reduce transmission then the only thing that matters is testing before coming to work for the staff.
Onwards transmission by fully vaccinated people is lower, even with delta. Israel are doing studies on it for people with a booster as well and given the very high protection three doses gives from infection I'd guess the results for onwards transmission will be very good too. All care workers are eligible for three doses of vaccine, which will probably be considered a full course by loads of countries soon (including this one).
Interesting:
"Previous studies have found that people infected with Delta have roughly the same levels of viral genetic materials in their noses regardless of whether they’d previously been vaccinated, suggesting that vaccinated and unvaccinated people might be equally infectious2. But studies also suggest that vaccinated people are less likely to spread the virus if they subsequently catch Delta: their levels of nasal virus drop faster than do those of unvaccinated infected people, and their nasal swabs contain smaller amounts of infectious virus"
On care workers and vaccinations, I do think they should be compulsory but:
1) the requirement in the NHS has been postponed to the spring.
2) anyone with documented antibodies from infection is as good as immunised
3) vaccinated can still spread covid, so is no substitute for testing and isolation.
4) actions have consequences. A spanner in the works for Social Care significantly worsens ability to discharge patients, and therefore the NHS bed crisis.
A coherent policy would exempt those with previous proven infection, would have been introduced in June not November, include NHS as well as Social Care, and increase funding for Social Care so they could backfill.
The new Yougov would still give the Conservatives most seats, 314, on the new boundaries but they would be 12 seats short of a majority in a hung parliament.
However with Labour only on 253 seats Boris could still stay in power with the support of the DUP and NI Unionists provided SF did not take their seats to support Starmer
The Conservatives being 60 seats ahead of Labour on an MoE poll difference shows how remarkably efficient their vote is after the boundary changes. Now there's a stroke of luck!
Isn’t not playing by the rules priced in by Boris supporters? I suspect the bubble wrapped around him will not burst. Those that support him and the Tories will contrive a way to explain it all away. Look at Trump.
I'm not sure about that, when it comes to old networks of power. There are historical class issues in Britain that mean the Red Wall will be made much more furious by Johnson apparently fixing things up with his friends at the Garrick, as compared to the appeal of the cavalier, devil-may-care Trumpian and billionaire lifestyle that many Americans still aspire to in a somewhat different culture.
Will they know what the 'Garrick' is? I'd never heard of the fucking place. Although now I know, it should be firebombed with all possible alacrity.
They will hear about it. We've already had wave after wave of negative reporting about gas boilers where its all cost on YOU to save the environment. Now we have the PM lecturing the world - 1 minute to midnight. Must act NOW. Forget the cost we must do SOMETHING. Who then gets in a private plane to have a pair of Supercharged Range Rovers whisk him to central London to have Chateaubriand in The Garrick.
Never heard of The Garrick you Red Wall plebs? You'd love it. Men only. Rich white men only.
Even Richard Littlejohn is eviscerating the PM over the hypocrisy of this.
Absolutely but hasn't that OE, Bullingdon, privileged ship sailed? Where else would people expect Boris to have dinner with Charles Moore (whose writings I despise btw)? Huddled round a corner table at Pizza Express?
Boris having dinner at the Garrick with posh climate change deniers isn't a surprise to anyone. As Littlejohn puts it - its the hypocrisy that sticks in the craw. Its saying YOU MUST ACT NOW and then personally doing the complete opposite. One rule for us, another for him. Do as I say you plebs not as I do.
Boris the political act has done an amazing job at making him look like a good chap, one of us. He isn't and never has been, and now and then the persona slips. The danger for him is that people get enough of a look behind the curtain and tear it down. This is the worst crisis he has been in and its entirely his own making.
I agree, especially with your last paragraph, but Paterson has resigned and this morning the news has moved onto Yorkshire CC and back to COP26
I expect an effect in the polls but this debacle has upset a lot of conservative mps with 250 of them compromised
There must be a growing concern within the party over Boris, and I expect the chief whip will come under pressure to resign as he could have prevented this
I would be very pleased to see Boris replaced with Rishi, but I do not expect it to happen for some time but Boris, if he wants to carry on, needs to take this as a serious lesson in how not to behave
On care workers and vaccinations, I do think they should be compulsory but:
1) the requirement in the NHS has been postponed to the spring.
2) anyone with documented antibodies from infection is as good as immunised
3) vaccinated can still spread covid, so is no substitute for testing and isolation.
4) actions have consequences. A spanner in the works for Social Care significantly worsens ability to discharge patients, and therefore the NHS bed crisis.
A coherent policy would exempt those with previous proven infection, would have been introduced in June not November, include NHS as well as Social Care, and increase funding for Social Care so they could backfill.
Are individual hospitals not able to set their own policies?
Boris having dinner at the Garrick with posh climate change deniers isn't a surprise to anyone. As Littlejohn puts it - its the hypocrisy that sticks in the craw. Its saying YOU MUST ACT NOW and then personally doing the complete opposite. One rule for us, another for him. Do as I say you plebs not as I do.
Boris the political act has done an amazing job at making him look like a good chap, one of us. He isn't and never has been, and now and then the persona slips. The danger for him is that people get enough of a look behind the curtain and tear it down. This is the worst crisis he has been in and its entirely his own making.
I had a fair idea that BJ was a nasty piece of work even before Eddie Mair stapled that description to his pasty forehead. The public’s (or at least those that are willing to give Johnson the benefit of the doubt) perception seems to see him as a bit of a lad, slapdash, likes a joke, takes the pish out of people they don’t like, essentially lovable. It’ll be interesting to see how long that view survives contact with the actualité of him being a grade A shit. Tbf Papa Johnson seems to have managed a lifetime of it though obviously with a great deal less scrutiny.
Summary. 6 by-elections. LD 3 (+2) Lab 2 (+1) Con 1 (-2) Ind 0 (-1)
Talking of by-elections, are Lab and the LDs going to come to some sort of arrangement in Bexley and North Shropshire?
I can't see it in Bexley & Old Sidcup, but it's *possible* in North Shropshire.
It does, however, require Labour and the Liberal Democrats to find a high profile, non party affiliated person of impeccable integrity willing to spend a couple of months of their life campaigning, and then between 18 and 30 months as an MP.
I can't think of any obvious candidates, because it's a very dead end job. You collect a couple of years of salary and... well... that's about it.
John Cleese? (At 82, surely too old.) Martin Lewis? (Not famous enough.)
There may be loads of appropriate people out there, but I can't think of one off the top of my head.
Esther Rantzen? She's tried before (against Moran un Luton). Although at 80-odd, being thrust into this particular race might not be for her.
I'd love Rory Stewart to have a go. He's an ex-Tory MP, yes, but he's been independently-minded, and it'd be good to get his voice back into parliament. But AIUI the constituency was heavily leave, so Stewart might not appeal to them.
Anyone else? It'd have to be someone acceptable to the Lib Dems and Labour, but is seen as being very clean, without any scandal. Someone in journalism or the charitable sectors would be boring choices, but the most likely.
It needs to be someone people have heard of, and is ideally known for being cleaner-than-clean. (No, not Danny Baker)
I know! What about Prince Harry, now he is no longer HRH?
Jeremy Clarkson would win at a canter.
On the subject of horses, what is it with the Jockey Club and senior Tories. Paterson, Jenrick, Hancock, Harding? They all seem to meet there to hand out contracts to their mates.
Does Paterson have any links with the jockey club aside from through his wife, who is now sadly dead? If so, why mention it?
What I've never understood is why - if this affair was a factor in his wife's suicide - PB Tories portray him as the victim rather than the person ultimately responsible.
'Ultimately responsible' is a bit nasty. Yes, his actions led to it, but could he have expected it to have led to it? Probably not. It's not as if he murdered her.
It seems to me that any excuse you can produce on Paterson's behalf applies about a hundred times more strongly to the people Paterson is trying to blame.
What you seem to be saying is that someone is to blame for someone else's suicide.
I am not 100% sure that is a sensible or productive way of thinking.
I am not saying that, and I don't think he is.
The suicide has been actively 'played' into this debate both by leading Tories and by Paterson himself. So it isn't legitimate then to play the grief card when anyone else mentions it.
Paterson's account is that the stress of the drawn out inquiry and the probability that Paterson's reputation as a politician, and by extension hers also, would be tarnished were contributory factors to his wife's suicide.
If this is the complete story (incidentally, she left no note, confided in no-one else, and his reaction at the time was that it came as a complete surprise - so how a year later is he now so sure?), what doesn't compute to me is that she would choose that day, thereby marking out his own birthday as that of the terrible deed for the rest of his life.
Absolutely. No one knows. But @Chris seems to apportion the blame to Paterson as being "ultimately responsible".
I didn't say that. I said Paterson was seeking to blame others.
What I said about Paterson was that if this affair was a factor in his wife's suicide - as he himself is claiming - then he is ultimately responsible.
But of course, if the only way people feel they can defend him is by making things up, that in itself tells us something.
Following a fall earlier this year my nan is against her and my grandad's wishes in a care home. Care workers have a choice whether to be vaccinated or not. She has no choice but to be there.
Throughout the pandemic my nan wouldn't let anyone into her home apart from essential people whom she'd keep a distance from, until after the vaccines were rolled out. Now she's compelled to be in a home with people who are potentially unvaccinated putting her life at risk?
If care workers don't give enough of a shit about the people they're caring for that they will get vaccinated to protect them, then I don't think they should be in the care sector.
I realise that we are dealing with probabilities here but vaccinated people can still pass the virus on. I know you don't like unvaccinated people - are you letting this feeling overrule logic? Just sayin'.
I think you have hit on something here. The situation has changed from when these rules were first thought of. At that time it was thought that vaccine would grant immunity. It doesn't. As an alternative it was thought that it significantly reduced the risk of the virus being passed on because you would have a lower viral load. I do not think, with Delta, that there is any compelling evidence of that. What the vaccines do is reduce the risk to the person vaccinated and all sensible people should be vaccinated as a result.
But can we actually say that you being vaccinated makes someone else safer? I am not sure. Maybe. Those who are not vaccinated are, I think, still more likely to become infected and therefore more likely, statistically, to infect others. Whether that risk is both robust and material needs looked at again.
You many not be sure, but the scientific community is sure that vaccination makes others safer.
I have put up a hypothesis that would lead to that conclusion but I put the same challenge to you as to Philip. Have we confirmed this since delta became dominant? It seems to infect people with vaccines as readily as those without, albeit they have much less risk of becoming severely ill.
It's a question of degree of risk isn't it - and I'm very concerned about the second-class citizen aspect of all this.
I am trying to imagine making an argument that requiring vaccination was "disproportionate" if there is a solid body of evidence that it reduces the risk of death to elderly, vulnerable people with comorbidities. How could it possibly be in that scenario? Its all about the quality of the evidence.
Following a fall earlier this year my nan is against her and my grandad's wishes in a care home. Care workers have a choice whether to be vaccinated or not. She has no choice but to be there.
Throughout the pandemic my nan wouldn't let anyone into her home apart from essential people whom she'd keep a distance from, until after the vaccines were rolled out. Now she's compelled to be in a home with people who are potentially unvaccinated putting her life at risk?
If care workers don't give enough of a shit about the people they're caring for that they will get vaccinated to protect them, then I don't think they should be in the care sector.
I realise that we are dealing with probabilities here but vaccinated people can still pass the virus on. I know you don't like unvaccinated people - are you letting this feeling overrule logic? Just sayin'.
I think you have hit on something here. The situation has changed from when these rules were first thought of. At that time it was thought that vaccine would grant immunity. It doesn't. As an alternative it was thought that it significantly reduced the risk of the virus being passed on because you would have a lower viral load. I do not think, with Delta, that there is any compelling evidence of that. What the vaccines do is reduce the risk to the person vaccinated and all sensible people should be vaccinated as a result.
But can we actually say that you being vaccinated makes someone else safer? I am not sure. Maybe. Those who are not vaccinated are, I think, still more likely to become infected and therefore more likely, statistically, to infect others. Whether that risk is both robust and material needs looked at again.
Someone posted some stats the other day (yesterday?) showing reduced transmission for vaxxed people. Would be interested in the detail of that because your understanding is the same as mine - that being vaxxed doesn't significantly reduce the transmission rate (save for viral load, same as someone with the virus but asymptomatic).
It matters a lot in the care homes debate because if it doesn't reduce transmission then the only thing that matters is testing before coming to work for the staff.
Onwards transmission by fully vaccinated people is lower, even with delta. Israel are doing studies on it for people with a booster as well and given the very high protection three doses gives from infection I'd guess the results for onwards transmission will be very good too. All care workers are eligible for three doses of vaccine, which will probably be considered a full course by loads of countries soon (including this one).
Interesting:
"Previous studies have found that people infected with Delta have roughly the same levels of viral genetic materials in their noses regardless of whether they’d previously been vaccinated, suggesting that vaccinated and unvaccinated people might be equally infectious2. But studies also suggest that vaccinated people are less likely to spread the virus if they subsequently catch Delta: their levels of nasal virus drop faster than do those of unvaccinated infected people, and their nasal swabs contain smaller amounts of infectious virus"
There's actually a new PCR variant test which will actually look into whether a person is infectious or not. I suspect what's happening is that in vaccinated people the level of infectious virus never really reaches critical mass but there's still a lot of neutralised viral particles present that are harmless.
Following a fall earlier this year my nan is against her and my grandad's wishes in a care home. Care workers have a choice whether to be vaccinated or not. She has no choice but to be there.
Throughout the pandemic my nan wouldn't let anyone into her home apart from essential people whom she'd keep a distance from, until after the vaccines were rolled out. Now she's compelled to be in a home with people who are potentially unvaccinated putting her life at risk?
If care workers don't give enough of a shit about the people they're caring for that they will get vaccinated to protect them, then I don't think they should be in the care sector.
I realise that we are dealing with probabilities here but vaccinated people can still pass the virus on. I know you don't like unvaccinated people - are you letting this feeling overrule logic? Just sayin'.
I think you have hit on something here. The situation has changed from when these rules were first thought of. At that time it was thought that vaccine would grant immunity. It doesn't. As an alternative it was thought that it significantly reduced the risk of the virus being passed on because you would have a lower viral load. I do not think, with Delta, that there is any compelling evidence of that. What the vaccines do is reduce the risk to the person vaccinated and all sensible people should be vaccinated as a result.
But can we actually say that you being vaccinated makes someone else safer? I am not sure. Maybe. Those who are not vaccinated are, I think, still more likely to become infected and therefore more likely, statistically, to infect others. Whether that risk is both robust and material needs looked at again.
Someone posted some stats the other day (yesterday?) showing reduced transmission for vaxxed people. Would be interested in the detail of that because your understanding is the same as mine - that being vaxxed doesn't significantly reduce the transmission rate (save for viral load, same as someone with the virus but asymptomatic).
It matters a lot in the care homes debate because if it doesn't reduce transmission then the only thing that matters is testing before coming to work for the staff.
Onwards transmission by fully vaccinated people is lower, even with delta. Israel are doing studies on it for people with a booster as well and given the very high protection three doses gives from infection I'd guess the results for onwards transmission will be very good too. All care workers are eligible for three doses of vaccine, which will probably be considered a full course by loads of countries soon (including this one).
Interesting:
"Previous studies have found that people infected with Delta have roughly the same levels of viral genetic materials in their noses regardless of whether they’d previously been vaccinated, suggesting that vaccinated and unvaccinated people might be equally infectious2. But studies also suggest that vaccinated people are less likely to spread the virus if they subsequently catch Delta: their levels of nasal virus drop faster than do those of unvaccinated infected people, and their nasal swabs contain smaller amounts of infectious virus"
Isn’t not playing by the rules priced in by Boris supporters? I suspect the bubble wrapped around him will not burst. Those that support him and the Tories will contrive a way to explain it all away. Look at Trump.
I'm not sure about that, when it comes to old networks of power. There are historical class issues in Britain that mean the Red Wall will be made much more furious by Johnson apparently fixing things up with his friends at the Garrick, as compared to the appeal of the cavalier, devil-may-care Trumpian and billionaire lifestyle that many Americans still aspire to in a somewhat different culture.
Will they know what the 'Garrick' is? I'd never heard of the fucking place. Although now I know, it should be firebombed with all possible alacrity.
They will hear about it. We've already had wave after wave of negative reporting about gas boilers where its all cost on YOU to save the environment. Now we have the PM lecturing the world - 1 minute to midnight. Must act NOW. Forget the cost we must do SOMETHING. Who then gets in a private plane to have a pair of Supercharged Range Rovers whisk him to central London to have Chateaubriand in The Garrick.
Never heard of The Garrick you Red Wall plebs? You'd love it. Men only. Rich white men only.
Even Richard Littlejohn is eviscerating the PM over the hypocrisy of this.
Absolutely but hasn't that OE, Bullingdon, privileged ship sailed? Where else would people expect Boris to have dinner with Charles Moore (whose writings I despise btw)? Huddled round a corner table at Pizza Express?
Boris having dinner at the Garrick with posh climate change deniers isn't a surprise to anyone. As Littlejohn puts it - its the hypocrisy that sticks in the craw. Its saying YOU MUST ACT NOW and then personally doing the complete opposite. One rule for us, another for him. Do as I say you plebs not as I do.
Boris the political act has done an amazing job at making him look like a good chap, one of us. He isn't and never has been, and now and then the persona slips. The danger for him is that people get enough of a look behind the curtain and tear it down. This is the worst crisis he has been in and its entirely his own making.
I agree, especially with your last paragraph, but Paterson has resigned and this morning the news has moved onto Yorkshire CC and back to COP26
I expect an effect in the polls but this debacle has upset a lot of conservative mps with 250 of them compromised
There must be a growing concern within the party over Boris, and I expect the chief whip will come under pressure to resign as he could have prevented this
I would be very pleased to see Boris replaced with Rishi, but I do not expect it to happen for some time but Boris, if he wants to carry on, needs to take this as a serious lesson in how not to behave
If he was capable of learning lessons about how not to behave, he would have done so at a much younger age.
The new Yougov would still give the Conservatives most seats, 314, on the new boundaries but they would be 12 seats short of a majority in a hung parliament.
However with Labour only on 253 seats Boris could still stay in power with the support of the DUP and NI Unionists provided SF did not take their seats to support Starmer
The Conservatives being 60 seats ahead of Labour on an MoE poll difference shows how remarkably efficient their vote is after the boundary changes. Now there's a stroke of luck!
Roughly the same size as Scotland.
That is a good point, while Labour has near zero chance of a majority or even most seats in England at the next general election on the new Yougov, Starmer may still be able to get in with the support of Scottish MPs.
However he would have to persuade the SNP to not only vote down the Conservatives but make him PM with confidence and supply, as the Tories would still comfortably have most seats he could not become PM otherwise. Most likely he would also need LD support as well but that would be easier to get
Summary. 6 by-elections. LD 3 (+2) Lab 2 (+1) Con 1 (-2) Ind 0 (-1)
Talking of by-elections, are Lab and the LDs going to come to some sort of arrangement in Bexley and North Shropshire?
I can't see it in Bexley & Old Sidcup, but it's *possible* in North Shropshire.
It does, however, require Labour and the Liberal Democrats to find a high profile, non party affiliated person of impeccable integrity willing to spend a couple of months of their life campaigning, and then between 18 and 30 months as an MP.
I can't think of any obvious candidates, because it's a very dead end job. You collect a couple of years of salary and... well... that's about it.
John Cleese? (At 82, surely too old.) Martin Lewis? (Not famous enough.)
There may be loads of appropriate people out there, but I can't think of one off the top of my head.
Esther Rantzen? She's tried before (against Moran un Luton). Although at 80-odd, being thrust into this particular race might not be for her.
I'd love Rory Stewart to have a go. He's an ex-Tory MP, yes, but he's been independently-minded, and it'd be good to get his voice back into parliament. But AIUI the constituency was heavily leave, so Stewart might not appeal to them.
Anyone else? It'd have to be someone acceptable to the Lib Dems and Labour, but is seen as being very clean, without any scandal. Someone in journalism or the charitable sectors would be boring choices, but the most likely.
It needs to be someone people have heard of, and is ideally known for being cleaner-than-clean. (No, not Danny Baker)
I know! What about Prince Harry, now he is no longer HRH?
Jeremy Clarkson would win at a canter.
On the subject of horses, what is it with the Jockey Club and senior Tories. Paterson, Jenrick, Hancock, Harding? They all seem to meet there to hand out contracts to their mates.
Does Paterson have any links with the jockey club aside from through his wife, who is now sadly dead? If so, why mention it?
What I've never understood is why - if this affair was a factor in his wife's suicide - PB Tories portray him as the victim rather than the person ultimately responsible.
'Ultimately responsible' is a bit nasty. Yes, his actions led to it, but could he have expected it to have led to it? Probably not. It's not as if he murdered her.
It seems to me that any excuse you can produce on Paterson's behalf applies about a hundred times more strongly to the people Paterson is trying to blame.
What you seem to be saying is that someone is to blame for someone else's suicide.
I am not 100% sure that is a sensible or productive way of thinking.
I am not saying that, and I don't think he is.
The suicide has been actively 'played' into this debate both by leading Tories and by Paterson himself. So it isn't legitimate then to play the grief card when anyone else mentions it.
Paterson's account is that the stress of the drawn out inquiry and the probability that Paterson's reputation as a politician, and by extension hers also, would be tarnished were contributory factors to his wife's suicide.
If this is the complete story (incidentally, she left no note, confided in no-one else, and his reaction at the time was that it came as a complete surprise - so how a year later is he now so sure?), what doesn't compute to me is that she would choose that day, thereby marking out his own birthday as that of the terrible deed for the rest of his life.
Absolutely. No one knows. But @Chris seems to apportion the blame to Paterson as being "ultimately responsible".
I didn't say that. I said Paterson was seeking to blame others.
What I said about Paterson was that if this affair was a factor in his wife's suicide - as he himself is claiming - then he is ultimately responsible.
But of course, if the only way people feel they can defend him is by making things up, that in itself tells us something.
Bottom line is that it was appallingly shabby politics from the Tories, and shabby behaviour by him as the involved widower, to try and blame his wife's surprise and unexplained suicide on the standards inquiry and, by extension, on the standards commissioner.
On Paterson, the respectful and honourable thing to do would have been never to mention his wife's tragic suicide, and treat it as a private matter of grief for him and his family, quite separate from the kerfuffle of the investigation.
However, Paterson himself raised it as part of the investigation, and in the last two days the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House have chosen to mention the suicide and hint that it is a relevant factor in how Paterson should, or should not, be 'punished' for his transgressions.
So if there is speculation about what prompted the suicide, that is entirely the fault of Paterson, the PM and JRM.
Very much enjoying the "Boris immediately knew he had to change course" briefing, which has now got to as early as 4.30pm on Wednesday - within an hour of the vote - but somehow doesn't explain why Kwasi Kwarteng was sent out to defend not changing course 14 hours later. https://twitter.com/RobDotHutton/status/1456542068092903448/photo/1
Isn’t not playing by the rules priced in by Boris supporters? I suspect the bubble wrapped around him will not burst. Those that support him and the Tories will contrive a way to explain it all away. Look at Trump.
I'm not sure about that, when it comes to old networks of power. There are historical class issues in Britain that mean the Red Wall will be made much more furious by Johnson apparently fixing things up with his friends at the Garrick, as compared to the appeal of the cavalier, devil-may-care Trumpian and billionaire lifestyle that many Americans still aspire to in a somewhat different culture.
Will they know what the 'Garrick' is? I'd never heard of the fucking place. Although now I know, it should be firebombed with all possible alacrity.
They will hear about it. We've already had wave after wave of negative reporting about gas boilers where its all cost on YOU to save the environment. Now we have the PM lecturing the world - 1 minute to midnight. Must act NOW. Forget the cost we must do SOMETHING. Who then gets in a private plane to have a pair of Supercharged Range Rovers whisk him to central London to have Chateaubriand in The Garrick.
Never heard of The Garrick you Red Wall plebs? You'd love it. Men only. Rich white men only.
Even Richard Littlejohn is eviscerating the PM over the hypocrisy of this.
Absolutely but hasn't that OE, Bullingdon, privileged ship sailed? Where else would people expect Boris to have dinner with Charles Moore (whose writings I despise btw)? Huddled round a corner table at Pizza Express?
Boris having dinner at the Garrick with posh climate change deniers isn't a surprise to anyone. As Littlejohn puts it - its the hypocrisy that sticks in the craw. Its saying YOU MUST ACT NOW and then personally doing the complete opposite. One rule for us, another for him. Do as I say you plebs not as I do.
Boris the political act has done an amazing job at making him look like a good chap, one of us. He isn't and never has been, and now and then the persona slips. The danger for him is that people get enough of a look behind the curtain and tear it down. This is the worst crisis he has been in and its entirely his own making.
I agree, especially with your last paragraph, but Paterson has resigned and this morning the news has moved onto Yorkshire CC and back to COP26
I expect an effect in the polls but this debacle has upset a lot of conservative mps with 250 of them compromised
There must be a growing concern within the party over Boris, and I expect the chief whip will come under pressure to resign as he could have prevented this
I would be very pleased to see Boris replaced with Rishi, but I do not expect it to happen for some time but Boris, if he wants to carry on, needs to take this as a serious lesson in how not to behave
If he was capable of learning lessons about how not to behave, he would have done so at a much younger age.
Exactly this. This is not new behaviour. This is who Boris is.
He couldn't possibly, could he. That would surely be suicide-provoking for oneself! I feel very sorry for him and his family over the death of Mrs P, but one way and another he got embroiled in a mess and, instead of stepping back and cleaning up, appears to have decided to try and brazen things out. A tactic which, of course, sometimes works.
I tend to agree.
Whatever one thinks of Owen Paterson, I am sure he is in a very dark place now (& has been for some time since his wife's death)
It is perfectly possible to feel sympathy for him -- much as I did for Chris Huhne when his life became badly de-railed with intersecting political and personal problems.
And so I can understand why some Tory MPs may have felt some sympathy towards him.
It would be a cruel irony or at least quite amusing if Boris' undoing was his blind loyalty to one of his MPs.
On the contrary. Paterson was the shield for his own wrongdoings.
5 live political correspondent this morning has said that this error came about because there was great sympathy for Owen Paterson within the party and it was this that wrongfooted the PM and others. He went on to say that some think this was to try to divert any investigation from Boris, but he said that far too many people are putting 2 and 2 together and getting 5
He went on to say labour have rejected standing aside in the by election as it is not Paterson they would be fighting and therefore they will not agree to a single candidate and will put forward their candidate
It's amazing how Labourites saw Cummings as being shifty and untrustworthy whilst in government, and now, once he is anti the government, whatever he says has to be taken as gospel.
We're seeing the first vibrations heralding the Tories' next Dr Who style rebirth, aren't we?
If things turn bad for them then guess what happens, as if by magic, in the press: it all becomes about Boris plus perhaps one or two of his lieutenants. The party then appears to enter a self-defeating death spiral, with backbenchers tearing into the PM and his personal ratings tumbling.
But then, what's this? a 1922 committee vote; a leadership election; a new, youthful and popular leader emerges, untainted by the shenanigans of the last 3 years despite being, um, chancellor of the exchequer throughout that time. And hey presto the party is reborn and back to 45% in the polls.
Snap election, big majority, job done. Until the next palace coup and the next performative metamorphosis.
Following a fall earlier this year my nan is against her and my grandad's wishes in a care home. Care workers have a choice whether to be vaccinated or not. She has no choice but to be there.
Throughout the pandemic my nan wouldn't let anyone into her home apart from essential people whom she'd keep a distance from, until after the vaccines were rolled out. Now she's compelled to be in a home with people who are potentially unvaccinated putting her life at risk?
If care workers don't give enough of a shit about the people they're caring for that they will get vaccinated to protect them, then I don't think they should be in the care sector.
I realise that we are dealing with probabilities here but vaccinated people can still pass the virus on. I know you don't like unvaccinated people - are you letting this feeling overrule logic? Just sayin'.
I think you have hit on something here. The situation has changed from when these rules were first thought of. At that time it was thought that vaccine would grant immunity. It doesn't. As an alternative it was thought that it significantly reduced the risk of the virus being passed on because you would have a lower viral load. I do not think, with Delta, that there is any compelling evidence of that. What the vaccines do is reduce the risk to the person vaccinated and all sensible people should be vaccinated as a result.
But can we actually say that you being vaccinated makes someone else safer? I am not sure. Maybe. Those who are not vaccinated are, I think, still more likely to become infected and therefore more likely, statistically, to infect others. Whether that risk is both robust and material needs looked at again.
Someone posted some stats the other day (yesterday?) showing reduced transmission for vaxxed people. Would be interested in the detail of that because your understanding is the same as mine - that being vaxxed doesn't significantly reduce the transmission rate (save for viral load, same as someone with the virus but asymptomatic).
It matters a lot in the care homes debate because if it doesn't reduce transmission then the only thing that matters is testing before coming to work for the staff.
Onwards transmission by fully vaccinated people is lower, even with delta. Israel are doing studies on it for people with a booster as well and given the very high protection three doses gives from infection I'd guess the results for onwards transmission will be very good too. All care workers are eligible for three doses of vaccine, which will probably be considered a full course by loads of countries soon (including this one).
Interesting:
"Previous studies have found that people infected with Delta have roughly the same levels of viral genetic materials in their noses regardless of whether they’d previously been vaccinated, suggesting that vaccinated and unvaccinated people might be equally infectious2. But studies also suggest that vaccinated people are less likely to spread the virus if they subsequently catch Delta: their levels of nasal virus drop faster than do those of unvaccinated infected people, and their nasal swabs contain smaller amounts of infectious virus"
On Paterson, the respectful and honourable thing to do would have been never to mention his wife's tragic suicide, and treat it as a private matter of grief for him and his family, quite separate from the kerfuffle of the investigation.
However, Paterson himself raised it as part of the investigation, and in the last two days the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House have chosen to mention the suicide and hint that it is a relevant factor in how Paterson should, or should not, be 'punished' for his transgressions.
So if there is speculation about what prompted the suicide, that is entirely the fault of Paterson, the PM and JRM.
Agreed. Paterson brought it up and associated her suicide with the investigation no one else did. I don't know the circumstances of her situation but if he's right and the investigation was a factor then as the person who brought the investigation on himself with corrupt behaviour he bears the burden of her death.
Labour rules out backing an Independent cross-party candidate in North Shropshire a la Martin Bell in Tatton 1997 and will instead stand a Labour candidate
The new Yougov would still give the Conservatives most seats, 314, on the new boundaries but they would be 12 seats short of a majority in a hung parliament.
However with Labour only on 253 seats Boris could still stay in power with the support of the DUP and NI Unionists provided SF did not take their seats to support Starmer
The Conservatives being 60 seats ahead of Labour on an MoE poll difference shows how remarkably efficient their vote is after the boundary changes. Now there's a stroke of luck!
Roughly the same size as Scotland.
That is a good point, while Labour has near zero chance of a majority or even most seats in England at the next general election on the new Yougov, Starmer may still be able to get in with the support of Scottish MPs.
However he would have to persuade the SNP to not only vote down the Conservatives but make him PM with confidence and supply, as the Tories would still comfortably have most seats he could not become PM otherwise. Most likely he would also need LD support as well but that would be easier to get
Labour majority is currently 6/1 on Betfair. If that's "near zero" to you then fair enough, but I'd not use that expression.
Following a fall earlier this year my nan is against her and my grandad's wishes in a care home. Care workers have a choice whether to be vaccinated or not. She has no choice but to be there.
Throughout the pandemic my nan wouldn't let anyone into her home apart from essential people whom she'd keep a distance from, until after the vaccines were rolled out. Now she's compelled to be in a home with people who are potentially unvaccinated putting her life at risk?
If care workers don't give enough of a shit about the people they're caring for that they will get vaccinated to protect them, then I don't think they should be in the care sector.
I realise that we are dealing with probabilities here but vaccinated people can still pass the virus on. I know you don't like unvaccinated people - are you letting this feeling overrule logic? Just sayin'.
I think you have hit on something here. The situation has changed from when these rules were first thought of. At that time it was thought that vaccine would grant immunity. It doesn't. As an alternative it was thought that it significantly reduced the risk of the virus being passed on because you would have a lower viral load. I do not think, with Delta, that there is any compelling evidence of that. What the vaccines do is reduce the risk to the person vaccinated and all sensible people should be vaccinated as a result.
But can we actually say that you being vaccinated makes someone else safer? I am not sure. Maybe. Those who are not vaccinated are, I think, still more likely to become infected and therefore more likely, statistically, to infect others. Whether that risk is both robust and material needs looked at again.
You many not be sure, but the scientific community is sure that vaccination makes others safer.
I have put up a hypothesis that would lead to that conclusion but I put the same challenge to you as to Philip. Have we confirmed this since delta became dominant? It seems to infect people with vaccines as readily as those without, albeit they have much less risk of becoming severely ill.
Thanks, its difficult to assess the robustness of the studies from that but there clearly is supportive evidence which, to my mind, would justify the requirement in terms of making it "rational".
Following a fall earlier this year my nan is against her and my grandad's wishes in a care home. Care workers have a choice whether to be vaccinated or not. She has no choice but to be there.
Throughout the pandemic my nan wouldn't let anyone into her home apart from essential people whom she'd keep a distance from, until after the vaccines were rolled out. Now she's compelled to be in a home with people who are potentially unvaccinated putting her life at risk?
If care workers don't give enough of a shit about the people they're caring for that they will get vaccinated to protect them, then I don't think they should be in the care sector.
I realise that we are dealing with probabilities here but vaccinated people can still pass the virus on. I know you don't like unvaccinated people - are you letting this feeling overrule logic? Just sayin'.
I think you have hit on something here. The situation has changed from when these rules were first thought of. At that time it was thought that vaccine would grant immunity. It doesn't. As an alternative it was thought that it significantly reduced the risk of the virus being passed on because you would have a lower viral load. I do not think, with Delta, that there is any compelling evidence of that. What the vaccines do is reduce the risk to the person vaccinated and all sensible people should be vaccinated as a result.
But can we actually say that you being vaccinated makes someone else safer? I am not sure. Maybe. Those who are not vaccinated are, I think, still more likely to become infected and therefore more likely, statistically, to infect others. Whether that risk is both robust and material needs looked at again.
Someone posted some stats the other day (yesterday?) showing reduced transmission for vaxxed people. Would be interested in the detail of that because your understanding is the same as mine - that being vaxxed doesn't significantly reduce the transmission rate (save for viral load, same as someone with the virus but asymptomatic).
It matters a lot in the care homes debate because if it doesn't reduce transmission then the only thing that matters is testing before coming to work for the staff.
Onwards transmission by fully vaccinated people is lower, even with delta. Israel are doing studies on it for people with a booster as well and given the very high protection three doses gives from infection I'd guess the results for onwards transmission will be very good too. All care workers are eligible for three doses of vaccine, which will probably be considered a full course by loads of countries soon (including this one).
Interesting:
"Previous studies have found that people infected with Delta have roughly the same levels of viral genetic materials in their noses regardless of whether they’d previously been vaccinated, suggesting that vaccinated and unvaccinated people might be equally infectious2. But studies also suggest that vaccinated people are less likely to spread the virus if they subsequently catch Delta: their levels of nasal virus drop faster than do those of unvaccinated infected people, and their nasal swabs contain smaller amounts of infectious virus"
There's actually a new PCR variant test which will actually look into whether a person is infectious or not. I suspect what's happening is that in vaccinated people the level of infectious virus never really reaches critical mass but there's still a lot of neutralised viral particles present that are harmless.
Vaccinated people can definitely spread it. Whether to the same extent (either because they are generally less infectious at all stages of infection, or because the vaccine reduces the infectiousness period) is the point of contention i think.
Call me old fashioned but I don’t think any MP should be a paid lobbyist for anyone
As I said some time ago mps and ministers, including the prime minister, should be paid more but that lobbying is prohibited including by companies and unions
We're seeing the first vibrations heralding the Tories' next Dr Who style rebirth, aren't we?
If things turn bad for them then guess what happens, as if by magic, in the press: it all becomes about Boris plus perhaps one or two of his lieutenants. The party then appears to enter a self-defeating death spiral, with backbenchers tearing into the PM and his personal ratings tumbling.
But then, what's this? a 1922 committee vote; a leadership election; a new, youthful and popular leader emerges, untainted by the shenanigans of the last 3 years despite being, um, chancellor of the exchequer throughout that time. And hey presto the party is reborn and back to 45% in the polls.
Snap election, big majority, job done. Until the next palace coup and the next performative metamorphosis.
Ironically, Boris could probably do with a few more bad-news Brexit stories - supply lines creaking, labour shortages and destroyed food etc. That re-motivates the base ('it's only Remoaner doom-mongery. Let's show Boris our support.') and reminds them that they shouldn't give that treacherous Brexit saboteur Sir Keir any change. Boris must be praying that Macron goes through with his threat to cut of Jersey's power supply.
I tend to agree with this. Although a Remainer/Rejoiner my ire is currently with the FBPE types who encourage a Brexiteer siege mentality, allowing Johnson and chums to rally the troops. A long game (and it's going to be a very long game) would let them dig a big enough hole for themselves.
"Cut through" with the public on this specific issue is not the problem. It's that he has humiliated his own MPs for no good reason. That leads to a divided Parliamentary party (at the very least) and we know what the public thinks of them...
Call me old fashioned but I don’t think any MP should be a paid lobbyist for anyone
That's actually being new fashioned. Old fashioned would be a string of interesting... arrangements - but most of them leading to money *after* the MP has left parliament. IOUs rather than cash on the barrelhead.
Isn’t not playing by the rules priced in by Boris supporters? I suspect the bubble wrapped around him will not burst. Those that support him and the Tories will contrive a way to explain it all away. Look at Trump.
I'm not sure about that, when it comes to old networks of power. There are historical class issues in Britain that mean the Red Wall will be made much more furious by Johnson apparently fixing things up with his friends at the Garrick, as compared to the appeal of the cavalier, devil-may-care Trumpian and billionaire lifestyle that many Americans still aspire to in a somewhat different culture.
Will they know what the 'Garrick' is? I'd never heard of the fucking place. Although now I know, it should be firebombed with all possible alacrity.
They will hear about it. We've already had wave after wave of negative reporting about gas boilers where its all cost on YOU to save the environment. Now we have the PM lecturing the world - 1 minute to midnight. Must act NOW. Forget the cost we must do SOMETHING. Who then gets in a private plane to have a pair of Supercharged Range Rovers whisk him to central London to have Chateaubriand in The Garrick.
Never heard of The Garrick you Red Wall plebs? You'd love it. Men only. Rich white men only.
Even Richard Littlejohn is eviscerating the PM over the hypocrisy of this.
Absolutely but hasn't that OE, Bullingdon, privileged ship sailed? Where else would people expect Boris to have dinner with Charles Moore (whose writings I despise btw)? Huddled round a corner table at Pizza Express?
Boris having dinner at the Garrick with posh climate change deniers isn't a surprise to anyone. As Littlejohn puts it - its the hypocrisy that sticks in the craw. Its saying YOU MUST ACT NOW and then personally doing the complete opposite. One rule for us, another for him. Do as I say you plebs not as I do.
Boris the political act has done an amazing job at making him look like a good chap, one of us. He isn't and never has been, and now and then the persona slips. The danger for him is that people get enough of a look behind the curtain and tear it down. This is the worst crisis he has been in and its entirely his own making.
I agree, especially with your last paragraph, but Paterson has resigned and this morning the news has moved onto Yorkshire CC and back to COP26
I expect an effect in the polls but this debacle has upset a lot of conservative mps with 250 of them compromised
There must be a growing concern within the party over Boris, and I expect the chief whip will come under pressure to resign as he could have prevented this
I would be very pleased to see Boris replaced with Rishi, but I do not expect it to happen for some time but Boris, if he wants to carry on, needs to take this as a serious lesson in how not to behave
If he was capable of learning lessons about how not to behave, he would have done so at a much younger age.
Exactly this. This is not new behaviour. This is who Boris is.
It's also why the occasional theories being pushed about how "Covid has affected his judgement" are basically nonsense. He didn't have good judgement before and doesn't now. The only thing that might have changed in the quality of advice he is receiving (on the theory that he will follow the advice of the last person he had a conversation with).
On care workers and vaccinations, I do think they should be compulsory but:
1) the requirement in the NHS has been postponed to the spring.
2) anyone with documented antibodies from infection is as good as immunised
3) vaccinated can still spread covid, so is no substitute for testing and isolation.
4) actions have consequences. A spanner in the works for Social Care significantly worsens ability to discharge patients, and therefore the NHS bed crisis.
A coherent policy would exempt those with previous proven infection, would have been introduced in June not November, include NHS as well as Social Care, and increase funding for Social Care so they could backfill.
You say that the requirement in the NHS has been postponed to the spring - I'm wondering whether the 11 November care home deadline will be extended similarly. There must be building awareness in government of the pressures on care home staffing that this will cause, though the effect will no doubt be patchy.
Big lesson for British politicians here: the public expects you to keep the norms of democracy and independent oversight. You are not our bosses, we are yours and you are on notice.
Thank goodness.
Seemed this cut through after all, and it was only a story for - what? - 24 hours.
It’s interesting to ponder why some stories cut through and others - like Boris’s wallpaper benefactor - do not.
From memory, Wallpapergate did cut through in some polls; there was that clutch of tiny leads at the end of April, but they didn't last.
Will this one persist?
The specific issue won't but the divisions our PM hath unnecessarily wrought within in his own party will. The papers are unanimous that MPs are seething at him. That means more rebellions, more u-turns, more perception that the plot has well and truly been lost...
The new Yougov would still give the Conservatives most seats, 314, on the new boundaries but they would be 12 seats short of a majority in a hung parliament.
However with Labour only on 253 seats Boris could still stay in power with the support of the DUP and NI Unionists provided SF did not take their seats to support Starmer
The Conservatives being 60 seats ahead of Labour on an MoE poll difference shows how remarkably efficient their vote is after the boundary changes. Now there's a stroke of luck!
Roughly the same size as Scotland.
That is a good point, while Labour has near zero chance of a majority or even most seats in England at the next general election on the new Yougov, Starmer may still be able to get in with the support of Scottish MPs.
However he would have to persuade the SNP to not only vote down the Conservatives but make him PM with confidence and supply, as the Tories would still comfortably have most seats he could not become PM otherwise. Most likely he would also need LD support as well but that would be easier to get
Labour majority is currently 6/1 on Betfair. If that's "near zero" to you then fair enough, but I'd not use that expression.
To be honest in these turbulent times I would not bet on any GE 24 outcome, as it could be anything between an increased conservative majority to a labour one and all points in between
It would be a cruel irony or at least quite amusing if Boris' undoing was his blind loyalty to one of his MPs.
On the contrary. Paterson was the shield for his own wrongdoings.
5 live political correspondent this morning has said that this error came about because there was great sympathy for Owen Paterson within the party and it was this that wrongfooted the PM and others. He went on to say that some think this was to try to divert any investigation from Boris, but he said that far too many people are putting 2 and 2 together and getting 5
He went on to say labour have rejected standing aside in the by election as it is not Paterson they would be fighting and therefore they will not agree to a single candidate and will put forward their candidate
It's amazing how Labourites saw Cummings as being shifty and untrustworthy whilst in government, and now, once he is anti the government, whatever he says has to be taken as gospel.
Nope he's still Shifty and Untrustworthy, but regardless of whether he was pro or anti Government some of the points he makes are valid.
Actually looking back at 2020 and the Barnard Castle affair you can see there that Boris isn't great at politics.
There he should have asked Cummings to resign so that Boris could refuse his resignation on importance grounds while on Wednesday he should have allowed Paterson to go while using it as an excuse to attack the process.
Boris just doesn't seem able to think of ways of getting what he wants while keeping people on board so he just blasts through instead.
The new Yougov would still give the Conservatives most seats, 314, on the new boundaries but they would be 12 seats short of a majority in a hung parliament.
However with Labour only on 253 seats Boris could still stay in power with the support of the DUP and NI Unionists provided SF did not take their seats to support Starmer
The Conservatives being 60 seats ahead of Labour on an MoE poll difference shows how remarkably efficient their vote is after the boundary changes. Now there's a stroke of luck!
Roughly the same size as Scotland.
That is a good point, while Labour has near zero chance of a majority or even most seats in England at the next general election on the new Yougov, Starmer may still be able to get in with the support of Scottish MPs.
However he would have to persuade the SNP to not only vote down the Conservatives but make him PM with confidence and supply, as the Tories would still comfortably have most seats he could not become PM otherwise. Most likely he would also need LD support as well but that would be easier to get
Labour majority is currently 6/1 on Betfair. If that's "near zero" to you then fair enough, but I'd not use that expression.
Without major gains in Scotland Labour would need a lead of 10%+ over the Tories for a majority of 1.
Even 6/1 is being generous to Labour majority chances
On Paterson, the respectful and honourable thing to do would have been never to mention his wife's tragic suicide, and treat it as a private matter of grief for him and his family, quite separate from the kerfuffle of the investigation.
However, Paterson himself raised it as part of the investigation, and in the last two days the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House have chosen to mention the suicide and hint that it is a relevant factor in how Paterson should, or should not, be 'punished' for his transgressions.
So if there is speculation about what prompted the suicide, that is entirely the fault of Paterson, the PM and JRM.
The investigating committee delayed things for ?six? months because of her death. I hope you'll agree that was the right thing to do - as it would have been if she'd died of natural causes. The idea that it could be kept quiet is ridiculous.
From recent threads it's clear the attitude of some on here would have been: "See, he's not mentioning it; he's ashamed of her death! He caused it!"
He couldn't possibly, could he. That would surely be suicide-provoking for oneself! I feel very sorry for him and his family over the death of Mrs P, but one way and another he got embroiled in a mess and, instead of stepping back and cleaning up, appears to have decided to try and brazen things out. A tactic which, of course, sometimes works.
I tend to agree.
Whatever one thinks of Owen Paterson, I am sure he is in a very dark place now (& has been for some time since his wife's death)
It is perfectly possible to feel sympathy for him -- much as I did for Chris Huhne when his life became badly de-railed with intersecting political and personal problems.
And so I can understand why some Tory MPs may have felt some sympathy towards him.
The understandable sympathy of colleagues doubtless made the whipping operation, on a proposition that clearly many Tories could see was dodgy, somewhat easier.
But chucking the circumstances of her death into the debate in the Commons and on the media, and trying to use it as a stick to beat the standards commissioner, was shameful.
So a re run of Brexit 2019 to come in 2023. I wonder what political leader might benefit from that just in time for 2024.......
2024? The election will be November 23 as soon as the new constituency boundaries are confirmed.
Definitely plausible, and probably value on the exchange markets, but reality is no-one knows.
Has to be held by May 2024 at the moment - and you don't allow the clock to run down in case circumstances change due to black swans (or chickens actually arriving home to roost).
We're seeing the first vibrations heralding the Tories' next Dr Who style rebirth, aren't we?
If things turn bad for them then guess what happens, as if by magic, in the press: it all becomes about Boris plus perhaps one or two of his lieutenants. The party then appears to enter a self-defeating death spiral, with backbenchers tearing into the PM and his personal ratings tumbling.
But then, what's this? a 1922 committee vote; a leadership election; a new, youthful and popular leader emerges, untainted by the shenanigans of the last 3 years despite being, um, chancellor of the exchequer throughout that time. And hey presto the party is reborn and back to 45% in the polls.
Snap election, big majority, job done. Until the next palace coup and the next performative metamorphosis.
All true of course, but unless this happened pretty regularly in long term institutions the Tories would still be campaigning hard for the return of James II, Oxford University would still be teaching the quadrivium, and all cases in the Court of Common Pleas would be about cattle taken in withernam.
Someone has to govern the country. It would be rather good if there were more than one electable party. ATM that number is veering between one and zero. Could someone teach Labour the great trick of staying the same while utterly transforming?
The Guardian going with an “interesting” angle on the Paterson story - questioning if Randox is now an acceptable sponsor of the Grand National……
They weren’t happy with Booze sponsors or betting companies as sponsors and now Randox is bad because of OP!
They really can’t help themselves - it’s the same thing where they campaigned and railed against companies such as BP pumping millions into sponsoring and supporting Art Galleries etc so BP and co withdraw then the Guardian starts wailing about galleries struggling for funding and so the government must spend more tax payer money on them.
Maybe they should accept that it’s better to have the money from the likes of BP and Randox and other “evil” companies as at least then there is some public good out of the profits made by the unacceptables……
Summary. 6 by-elections. LD 3 (+2) Lab 2 (+1) Con 1 (-2) Ind 0 (-1)
Talking of by-elections, are Lab and the LDs going to come to some sort of arrangement in Bexley and North Shropshire?
I can't see it in Bexley & Old Sidcup, but it's *possible* in North Shropshire.
It does, however, require Labour and the Liberal Democrats to find a high profile, non party affiliated person of impeccable integrity willing to spend a couple of months of their life campaigning, and then between 18 and 30 months as an MP.
I can't think of any obvious candidates, because it's a very dead end job. You collect a couple of years of salary and... well... that's about it.
John Cleese? (At 82, surely too old.) Martin Lewis? (Not famous enough.)
There may be loads of appropriate people out there, but I can't think of one off the top of my head.
Esther Rantzen? She's tried before (against Moran un Luton). Although at 80-odd, being thrust into this particular race might not be for her.
I'd love Rory Stewart to have a go. He's an ex-Tory MP, yes, but he's been independently-minded, and it'd be good to get his voice back into parliament. But AIUI the constituency was heavily leave, so Stewart might not appeal to them.
Anyone else? It'd have to be someone acceptable to the Lib Dems and Labour, but is seen as being very clean, without any scandal. Someone in journalism or the charitable sectors would be boring choices, but the most likely.
It needs to be someone people have heard of, and is ideally known for being cleaner-than-clean. (No, not Danny Baker)
I know! What about Prince Harry, now he is no longer HRH?
Jeremy Clarkson would win at a canter.
On the subject of horses, what is it with the Jockey Club and senior Tories. Paterson, Jenrick, Hancock, Harding? They all seem to meet there to hand out contracts to their mates.
Does Paterson have any links with the jockey club aside from through his wife, who is now sadly dead? If so, why mention it?
What I've never understood is why - if this affair was a factor in his wife's suicide - PB Tories portray him as the victim rather than the person ultimately responsible.
'Ultimately responsible' is a bit nasty. Yes, his actions led to it, but could he have expected it to have led to it? Probably not. It's not as if he murdered her.
It seems to me that any excuse you can produce on Paterson's behalf applies about a hundred times more strongly to the people Paterson is trying to blame.
What you seem to be saying is that someone is to blame for someone else's suicide.
I am not 100% sure that is a sensible or productive way of thinking.
I am not saying that, and I don't think he is.
The suicide has been actively 'played' into this debate both by leading Tories and by Paterson himself. So it isn't legitimate then to play the grief card when anyone else mentions it.
Paterson's account is that the stress of the drawn out inquiry and the probability that Paterson's reputation as a politician, and by extension hers also, would be tarnished were contributory factors to his wife's suicide.
If this is the complete story (incidentally, she left no note, confided in no-one else, and his reaction at the time was that it came as a complete surprise - so how a year later is he now so sure?), what doesn't compute to me is that she would choose that day, thereby marking out his own birthday as that of the terrible deed for the rest of his life.
Absolutely. No one knows. But @Chris seems to apportion the blame to Paterson as being "ultimately responsible".
I didn't say that. I said Paterson was seeking to blame others.
What I said about Paterson was that if this affair was a factor in his wife's suicide - as he himself is claiming - then he is ultimately responsible.
But of course, if the only way people feel they can defend him is by making things up, that in itself tells us something.
ie you used the same language that you condemned him for using.
The new Yougov would still give the Conservatives most seats, 314, on the new boundaries but they would be 12 seats short of a majority in a hung parliament.
However with Labour only on 253 seats Boris could still stay in power with the support of the DUP and NI Unionists provided SF did not take their seats to support Starmer
The Conservatives being 60 seats ahead of Labour on an MoE poll difference shows how remarkably efficient their vote is after the boundary changes. Now there's a stroke of luck!
Roughly the same size as Scotland.
That is a good point, while Labour has near zero chance of a majority or even most seats in England at the next general election on the new Yougov, Starmer may still be able to get in with the support of Scottish MPs.
However he would have to persuade the SNP to not only vote down the Conservatives but make him PM with confidence and supply, as the Tories would still comfortably have most seats he could not become PM otherwise. Most likely he would also need LD support as well but that would be easier to get
Labour majority is currently 6/1 on Betfair. If that's "near zero" to you then fair enough, but I'd not use that expression.
Without major gains in Scotland Labour would need a lead of 10%+ over the Tories for a majority of 1.
Even 6/1 is being generous to Labour majority chances
So a re run of Brexit 2019 to come in 2023. I wonder what political leader might benefit from that just in time for 2024.......
2024? The election will be November 23 as soon as the new constituency boundaries are confirmed.
Definitely plausible, and probably value on the exchange markets, but reality is no-one knows.
Has to be held by May 2024 at the moment - and you don't allow the clock to run down in case circumstances change due to black swans (or chickens actually arriving home to roost).
If you are certain a fortune is available to be made on the betting markets.
The Guardian going with an “interesting” angle on the Paterson story - questioning if Randox is now an acceptable sponsor of the Grand National……
They weren’t happy with Booze sponsors or betting companies as sponsors and now Randox is bad because of OP!
They really can’t help themselves - it’s the same thing where they campaigned and railed against companies such as BP pumping millions into sponsoring and supporting Art Galleries etc so BP and co withdraw then the Guardian starts wailing about galleries struggling for funding and so the government must spend more tax payer money on them.
Maybe they should accept that it’s better to have the money from the likes of BP and Randox and other “evil” companies as at least then there is some public good out of the profits made by the unacceptables……
Maybe you should accept the graun doesn't represent your views very well and stop reading it?
Mogg’s opposite number, Shadow Commons Leader Thangam Debbonaire, built herself into a blizzard of fury. She was loving every second, hopping about excitedly at the dispatch box. ‘Shameful!’ she bellowed.
The new Yougov would still give the Conservatives most seats, 314, on the new boundaries but they would be 12 seats short of a majority in a hung parliament.
However with Labour only on 253 seats Boris could still stay in power with the support of the DUP and NI Unionists provided SF did not take their seats to support Starmer
The Conservatives being 60 seats ahead of Labour on an MoE poll difference shows how remarkably efficient their vote is after the boundary changes. Now there's a stroke of luck!
Roughly the same size as Scotland.
That is a good point, while Labour has near zero chance of a majority or even most seats in England at the next general election on the new Yougov, Starmer may still be able to get in with the support of Scottish MPs.
However he would have to persuade the SNP to not only vote down the Conservatives but make him PM with confidence and supply, as the Tories would still comfortably have most seats he could not become PM otherwise. Most likely he would also need LD support as well but that would be easier to get
Labour majority is currently 6/1 on Betfair. If that's "near zero" to you then fair enough, but I'd not use that expression.
Without major gains in Scotland Labour would need a lead of 10%+ over the Tories for a majority of 1.
Even 6/1 is being generous to Labour majority chances
I would hesitate to back a Labour majority (326+ seats) at 25/1.
Isn’t not playing by the rules priced in by Boris supporters? I suspect the bubble wrapped around him will not burst. Those that support him and the Tories will contrive a way to explain it all away. Look at Trump.
I'm not sure about that, when it comes to old networks of power. There are historical class issues in Britain that mean the Red Wall will be made much more furious by Johnson apparently fixing things up with his friends at the Garrick, as compared to the appeal of the cavalier, devil-may-care Trumpian and billionaire lifestyle that many Americans still aspire to in a somewhat different culture.
Will they know what the 'Garrick' is? I'd never heard of the fucking place. Although now I know, it should be firebombed with all possible alacrity.
They will hear about it. We've already had wave after wave of negative reporting about gas boilers where its all cost on YOU to save the environment. Now we have the PM lecturing the world - 1 minute to midnight. Must act NOW. Forget the cost we must do SOMETHING. Who then gets in a private plane to have a pair of Supercharged Range Rovers whisk him to central London to have Chateaubriand in The Garrick.
Never heard of The Garrick you Red Wall plebs? You'd love it. Men only. Rich white men only.
Even Richard Littlejohn is eviscerating the PM over the hypocrisy of this.
Absolutely but hasn't that OE, Bullingdon, privileged ship sailed? Where else would people expect Boris to have dinner with Charles Moore (whose writings I despise btw)? Huddled round a corner table at Pizza Express?
Boris having dinner at the Garrick with posh climate change deniers isn't a surprise to anyone. As Littlejohn puts it - its the hypocrisy that sticks in the craw. Its saying YOU MUST ACT NOW and then personally doing the complete opposite. One rule for us, another for him. Do as I say you plebs not as I do.
Boris the political act has done an amazing job at making him look like a good chap, one of us. He isn't and never has been, and now and then the persona slips. The danger for him is that people get enough of a look behind the curtain and tear it down. This is the worst crisis he has been in and its entirely his own making.
I agree, especially with your last paragraph, but Paterson has resigned and this morning the news has moved onto Yorkshire CC and back to COP26
I expect an effect in the polls but this debacle has upset a lot of conservative mps with 250 of them compromised
There must be a growing concern within the party over Boris, and I expect the chief whip will come under pressure to resign as he could have prevented this
I would be very pleased to see Boris replaced with Rishi, but I do not expect it to happen for some time but Boris, if he wants to carry on, needs to take this as a serious lesson in how not to behave
If he was capable of learning lessons about how not to behave, he would have done so at a much younger age.
I do have some sympathy for Boris re Paterson as I suspect he was bounced into doing something by Leadsom's gang of fools.
More worrying for Boris is another holiday embarrassment and the plane journey from Glasgow.
Both of which show he doesn't learn from mistakes.
It would be a cruel irony or at least quite amusing if Boris' undoing was his blind loyalty to one of his MPs.
On the contrary. Paterson was the shield for his own wrongdoings.
5 live political correspondent this morning has said that this error came about because there was great sympathy for Owen Paterson within the party and it was this that wrongfooted the PM and others. He went on to say that some think this was to try to divert any investigation from Boris, but he said that far too many people are putting 2 and 2 together and getting 5
He went on to say labour have rejected standing aside in the by election as it is not Paterson they would be fighting and therefore they will not agree to a single candidate and will put forward their candidate
It's amazing how Labourites saw Cummings as being shifty and untrustworthy whilst in government, and now, once he is anti the government, whatever he says has to be taken as gospel.
I don't think anyone who thought Cummings was a bad 'un 15 months ago thinks he is a good 'un now. However if Cummings makes a statement that confirms what we already thought about Johnson, are we supposed to change our view because our suspicions have been confirmed by a charlatan?
Absolutely scathing opinion piece in today's Telegrpah by Fraser Nelson over the Paterson affair; Headline: "The Tories are behaving ike a tired government in its dying days."
Telegraph editorial, while sympathetic to Paterson and critical of Kathryn Stone, admits the government has handled it badly.
Rather ironic, given that the Mail are saying the entire plan was the idea of some Telegraph Journalists and Editors.
Mogg’s opposite number, Shadow Commons Leader Thangam Debbonaire, built herself into a blizzard of fury. She was loving every second, hopping about excitedly at the dispatch box. ‘Shameful!’ she bellowed.
Isn’t not playing by the rules priced in by Boris supporters? I suspect the bubble wrapped around him will not burst. Those that support him and the Tories will contrive a way to explain it all away. Look at Trump.
I'm not sure about that, when it comes to old networks of power. There are historical class issues in Britain that mean the Red Wall will be made much more furious by Johnson apparently fixing things up with his friends at the Garrick, as compared to the appeal of the cavalier, devil-may-care Trumpian and billionaire lifestyle that many Americans still aspire to in a somewhat different culture.
Will they know what the 'Garrick' is? I'd never heard of the fucking place. Although now I know, it should be firebombed with all possible alacrity.
They will hear about it. We've already had wave after wave of negative reporting about gas boilers where its all cost on YOU to save the environment. Now we have the PM lecturing the world - 1 minute to midnight. Must act NOW. Forget the cost we must do SOMETHING. Who then gets in a private plane to have a pair of Supercharged Range Rovers whisk him to central London to have Chateaubriand in The Garrick.
Never heard of The Garrick you Red Wall plebs? You'd love it. Men only. Rich white men only.
Even Richard Littlejohn is eviscerating the PM over the hypocrisy of this.
Absolutely but hasn't that OE, Bullingdon, privileged ship sailed? Where else would people expect Boris to have dinner with Charles Moore (whose writings I despise btw)? Huddled round a corner table at Pizza Express?
Boris having dinner at the Garrick with posh climate change deniers isn't a surprise to anyone. As Littlejohn puts it - its the hypocrisy that sticks in the craw. Its saying YOU MUST ACT NOW and then personally doing the complete opposite. One rule for us, another for him. Do as I say you plebs not as I do.
Boris the political act has done an amazing job at making him look like a good chap, one of us. He isn't and never has been, and now and then the persona slips. The danger for him is that people get enough of a look behind the curtain and tear it down. This is the worst crisis he has been in and its entirely his own making.
I agree, especially with your last paragraph, but Paterson has resigned and this morning the news has moved onto Yorkshire CC and back to COP26
I expect an effect in the polls but this debacle has upset a lot of conservative mps with 250 of them compromised
There must be a growing concern within the party over Boris, and I expect the chief whip will come under pressure to resign as he could have prevented this
I would be very pleased to see Boris replaced with Rishi, but I do not expect it to happen for some time but Boris, if he wants to carry on, needs to take this as a serious lesson in how not to behave
If there was nothing new to add, no further fuel to the fire then yes it would start fading.
But that isn't true. We have the Electoral Commission report into the PM about to drop, and we have the "she must resign" Independent Standards Commissioner going after him.
"Vote for this or you lose your town's funding" must have seriously wound red-wallers up. So the willingness to back Boris will be weaker than it was a few days ago.
Good time then for Boris to go to WAR with the EU.
It would be a cruel irony or at least quite amusing if Boris' undoing was his blind loyalty to one of his MPs.
On the contrary. Paterson was the shield for his own wrongdoings.
5 live political correspondent this morning has said that this error came about because there was great sympathy for Owen Paterson within the party and it was this that wrongfooted the PM and others. He went on to say that some think this was to try to divert any investigation from Boris, but he said that far too many people are putting 2 and 2 together and getting 5
He went on to say labour have rejected standing aside in the by election as it is not Paterson they would be fighting and therefore they will not agree to a single candidate and will put forward their candidate
It's amazing how Labourites saw Cummings as being shifty and untrustworthy whilst in government, and now, once he is anti the government, whatever he says has to be taken as gospel.
Nope he's still Shifty and Untrustworthy, but regardless of whether he was pro or anti Government some of the points he makes are valid.
Actually looking back at 2020 and the Barnard Castle affair you can see there that Boris isn't great at politics.
There he should have asked Cummings to resign so that Boris could refuse his resignation on importance grounds while on Wednesday he should have allowed Paterson to go while using it as an excuse to attack the process.
Boris just doesn't seem able to think of ways of getting what he wants while keeping people on board so he just blasts through instead.
I think one of the problems Boris has is that he is all tactics, not strategy. He may have a broad aim (become PM), but he does this by a series of reactive tactics, rather than an overwhelming controlling strategy. ("Okay, I'll become an MP. Hang on, this isn't much fun. Cripes! I could be Mayor of London! Oh bugger, I'm in no position to become PM. I'll become an MP again. Oh, which way should I vote on the Brexit referendum? urrm, I'll write two pieces." etc, etc.)
He has been remarkably successful in this (sadly, IMV), but being PM requires a strategy and vision. He is just bumbling along, reacting to events. The mess this week could easily have been avoided if he had either a hard-nosed strategy or an overarching morality. He has neither.
In a way he's a little like Gordon Brown: he desired to become PM, and then when he gets it, he doesn't seem to know what he wants to do with it. In his case he has Covid as an excuse (rightly, this has consumed the government's attention), but I still don't really see what Boris's vision for the country is aside from vacuous platitudes.
I suppose there's 'levelling up', but that's not exactly education, education, education.
Anyway, looking for an O/T - that most valuable of an achievement when earned legitimately - any news of the Queen?
Our elderly neighbour, who is somewhat of a royalist and a keen chronicler of all matters relating thereto, reports that the health issue is "back body" related and that "tubes" are involved.
It would be a cruel irony or at least quite amusing if Boris' undoing was his blind loyalty to one of his MPs.
On the contrary. Paterson was the shield for his own wrongdoings.
5 live political correspondent this morning has said that this error came about because there was great sympathy for Owen Paterson within the party and it was this that wrongfooted the PM and others. He went on to say that some think this was to try to divert any investigation from Boris, but he said that far too many people are putting 2 and 2 together and getting 5
He went on to say labour have rejected standing aside in the by election as it is not Paterson they would be fighting and therefore they will not agree to a single candidate and will put forward their candidate
It's amazing how Labourites saw Cummings as being shifty and untrustworthy whilst in government, and now, once he is anti the government, whatever he says has to be taken as gospel.
I don't think anyone who thought Cummings was a bad 'un 15 months ago thinks he is a good 'un now. However if Cummings makes a statement that confirms what we already thought about Johnson, are we supposed to change our view because our suspicions have been confirmed by a charlatan?
It is just like the argument that the right can't trust anything in the Guardian and the left can't trust anything in the Mail espoused yesterday. Conveniently that leaves us all in ignorance and the elite able to do whatever they please.
Biased sources are still sources. Their words are to be considered in that context, not thrown out automatically.
The Guardian going with an “interesting” angle on the Paterson story - questioning if Randox is now an acceptable sponsor of the Grand National……
They weren’t happy with Booze sponsors or betting companies as sponsors and now Randox is bad because of OP!
They really can’t help themselves - it’s the same thing where they campaigned and railed against companies such as BP pumping millions into sponsoring and supporting Art Galleries etc so BP and co withdraw then the Guardian starts wailing about galleries struggling for funding and so the government must spend more tax payer money on them.
Maybe they should accept that it’s better to have the money from the likes of BP and Randox and other “evil” companies as at least then there is some public good out of the profits made by the unacceptables……
Maybe you should accept the graun doesn't represent your views very well and stop reading it?
You are correct - I, and everyone else, should only read things that agree with our established views. Don’t want the risk of having those views tested and challenged and maybe even changed if a good counter-argument is made…….
Perhaps OGH needs to split PB into “PB left.com” and “PB right.com” so we can sit in our bubbles and not have to be exposed to things we don’t agree with!!
Doesn't have to be. Its easy to see how Boris Johnson's government ends. If they cling onto him because of past flukes masterminded by long-sacked advisers then the whole ship sinks.
Or they throw him overboard and install Dishi. And win re-election.
Following a fall earlier this year my nan is against her and my grandad's wishes in a care home. Care workers have a choice whether to be vaccinated or not. She has no choice but to be there.
Throughout the pandemic my nan wouldn't let anyone into her home apart from essential people whom she'd keep a distance from, until after the vaccines were rolled out. Now she's compelled to be in a home with people who are potentially unvaccinated putting her life at risk?
If care workers don't give enough of a shit about the people they're caring for that they will get vaccinated to protect them, then I don't think they should be in the care sector.
I realise that we are dealing with probabilities here but vaccinated people can still pass the virus on. I know you don't like unvaccinated people - are you letting this feeling overrule logic? Just sayin'.
I think you have hit on something here. The situation has changed from when these rules were first thought of. At that time it was thought that vaccine would grant immunity. It doesn't. As an alternative it was thought that it significantly reduced the risk of the virus being passed on because you would have a lower viral load. I do not think, with Delta, that there is any compelling evidence of that. What the vaccines do is reduce the risk to the person vaccinated and all sensible people should be vaccinated as a result.
But can we actually say that you being vaccinated makes someone else safer? I am not sure. Maybe. Those who are not vaccinated are, I think, still more likely to become infected and therefore more likely, statistically, to infect others. Whether that risk is both robust and material needs looked at again.
You many not be sure, but the scientific community is sure that vaccination makes others safer.
I have put up a hypothesis that would lead to that conclusion but I put the same challenge to you as to Philip. Have we confirmed this since delta became dominant? It seems to infect people with vaccines as readily as those without, albeit they have much less risk of becoming severely ill.
It's a question of degree of risk isn't it - and I'm very concerned about the second-class citizen aspect of all this.
For me the key point is that care residents like my nan have no choice but to be in the home.
Others do have a choice whether to get vaccinated or not.
My nan would not want people in her home unvaccinated. She didn't before she was forced to go into a care home. If care workers don't want to get vaccinated then that's their free choice, but they shouldn't be working with societies most vulnerable people then.
It would be a cruel irony or at least quite amusing if Boris' undoing was his blind loyalty to one of his MPs.
On the contrary. Paterson was the shield for his own wrongdoings.
5 live political correspondent this morning has said that this error came about because there was great sympathy for Owen Paterson within the party and it was this that wrongfooted the PM and others. He went on to say that some think this was to try to divert any investigation from Boris, but he said that far too many people are putting 2 and 2 together and getting 5
He went on to say labour have rejected standing aside in the by election as it is not Paterson they would be fighting and therefore they will not agree to a single candidate and will put forward their candidate
It's amazing how Labourites saw Cummings as being shifty and untrustworthy whilst in government, and now, once he is anti the government, whatever he says has to be taken as gospel.
I don't think anyone who thought Cummings was a bad 'un 15 months ago thinks he is a good 'un now. However if Cummings makes a statement that confirms what we already thought about Johnson, are we supposed to change our view because our suspicions have been confirmed by a charlatan?
Surely that is "useless data" - Cummings is either trustworthy or not.
Bit like the legal principle that if someone is proven to have lied under oath, everything they say....
So a re run of Brexit 2019 to come in 2023. I wonder what political leader might benefit from that just in time for 2024.......
2024? The election will be November 23 as soon as the new constituency boundaries are confirmed.
Definitely plausible, and probably value on the exchange markets, but reality is no-one knows.
Has to be held by May 2024 at the moment - and you don't allow the clock to run down in case circumstances change due to black swans (or chickens actually arriving home to roost).
Trouble is that we're going to collectively be poorer next year than this, and poorer still in 2023, due to inflation and tax rises.
Rishi's window of opportunity is rapidly closing, and the government need to hope they can make the other side of the swamp before the bell goes in 2024.
The government will do their best to yank the political and economic cycles back into synch, and it's not beyond their capabilities.
This morning at 1 I woke up with all the symptoms of Covid. Fever, digestive trouble, muscle fatigue/spasms, and a cough.
I did an LFT and it came back negative.
I got in touch with my boss and she ordered me to get a PCR on the grounds that LFTs usually do not pick up on symptomatic cases.
Which, given they are also pretty useless for asymptomatic cases, makes me wonder just what the fecking point of them is.
I am doubting what your boss says TBH.
Depends on how well they are taken I suspect.
A friend last week had symptoms such as yours, took a LFT and the result was a very quick indication of a positive. It was very clear.
Possibly. What I can tell you, purely anecdotally, is that last week a colleague of mine had five LFTs come back negative but her symptoms eventually led her to get a PCR which came back positive.
The Guardian going with an “interesting” angle on the Paterson story - questioning if Randox is now an acceptable sponsor of the Grand National……
They weren’t happy with Booze sponsors or betting companies as sponsors and now Randox is bad because of OP!
They really can’t help themselves - it’s the same thing where they campaigned and railed against companies such as BP pumping millions into sponsoring and supporting Art Galleries etc so BP and co withdraw then the Guardian starts wailing about galleries struggling for funding and so the government must spend more tax payer money on them.
Maybe they should accept that it’s better to have the money from the likes of BP and Randox and other “evil” companies as at least then there is some public good out of the profits made by the unacceptables……
Maybe you should accept the graun doesn't represent your views very well and stop reading it?
You are correct - I, and everyone else, should only read things that agree with our established views. Don’t want the risk of having those views tested and challenged and maybe even changed if a good counter-argument is made…….
Perhaps OGH needs to split PB into “PB left.com” and “PB right.com” so we can sit in our bubbles and not have to be exposed to things we don’t agree with!!
The Guardian going with an “interesting” angle on the Paterson story - questioning if Randox is now an acceptable sponsor of the Grand National……
They weren’t happy with Booze sponsors or betting companies as sponsors and now Randox is bad because of OP!
They really can’t help themselves - it’s the same thing where they campaigned and railed against companies such as BP pumping millions into sponsoring and supporting Art Galleries etc so BP and co withdraw then the Guardian starts wailing about galleries struggling for funding and so the government must spend more tax payer money on them.
Maybe they should accept that it’s better to have the money from the likes of BP and Randox and other “evil” companies as at least then there is some public good out of the profits made by the unacceptables……
Maybe you should accept the graun doesn't represent your views very well and stop reading it?
You are correct - I, and everyone else, should only read things that agree with our established views. Don’t want the risk of having those views tested and challenged and maybe even changed if a good counter-argument is made…….
Perhaps OGH needs to split PB into “PB left.com” and “PB right.com” so we can sit in our bubbles and not have to be exposed to things we don’t agree with!!
Oh that works so well in Facebook
The reality is that you really should listen to the other side to ensure you don't end up down a left or right wing rabbit hole.
The Guardian going with an “interesting” angle on the Paterson story - questioning if Randox is now an acceptable sponsor of the Grand National……
They weren’t happy with Booze sponsors or betting companies as sponsors and now Randox is bad because of OP!
They really can’t help themselves - it’s the same thing where they campaigned and railed against companies such as BP pumping millions into sponsoring and supporting Art Galleries etc so BP and co withdraw then the Guardian starts wailing about galleries struggling for funding and so the government must spend more tax payer money on them.
Maybe they should accept that it’s better to have the money from the likes of BP and Randox and other “evil” companies as at least then there is some public good out of the profits made by the unacceptables……
Maybe you should accept the graun doesn't represent your views very well and stop reading it?
You are correct - I, and everyone else, should only read things that agree with our established views. Don’t want the risk of having those views tested and challenged and maybe even changed if a good counter-argument is made…….
Perhaps OGH needs to split PB into “PB left.com” and “PB right.com” so we can sit in our bubbles and not have to be exposed to things we don’t agree with!!
No, bad idea; we all need a good laugh. And, perchance, the opportunity to come up against views which might make us reflect.
Labour rules out backing an Independent cross-party candidate in North Shropshire a la Martin Bell in Tatton 1997 and will instead stand a Labour candidate
Proof if it were needed that Starmer likes to play by the rules that are stacked against him. He has no political nous, he has no killer instinct.
Imagine, Mr Starmer, every night on the ItV, BBC and Sky News bulletins, corresponds would be following around an "anti- Conservative- sleaze" candidate. How much would that sort of advertising on billboards cost?
Isn’t not playing by the rules priced in by Boris supporters? I suspect the bubble wrapped around him will not burst. Those that support him and the Tories will contrive a way to explain it all away. Look at Trump.
I'm not sure about that, when it comes to old networks of power. There are historical class issues in Britain that mean the Red Wall will be made much more furious by Johnson apparently fixing things up with his friends at the Garrick, as compared to the appeal of the cavalier, devil-may-care Trumpian and billionaire lifestyle that many Americans still aspire to in a somewhat different culture.
Will they know what the 'Garrick' is? I'd never heard of the fucking place. Although now I know, it should be firebombed with all possible alacrity.
They will hear about it. We've already had wave after wave of negative reporting about gas boilers where its all cost on YOU to save the environment. Now we have the PM lecturing the world - 1 minute to midnight. Must act NOW. Forget the cost we must do SOMETHING. Who then gets in a private plane to have a pair of Supercharged Range Rovers whisk him to central London to have Chateaubriand in The Garrick.
Never heard of The Garrick you Red Wall plebs? You'd love it. Men only. Rich white men only.
Even Richard Littlejohn is eviscerating the PM over the hypocrisy of this.
Absolutely but hasn't that OE, Bullingdon, privileged ship sailed? Where else would people expect Boris to have dinner with Charles Moore (whose writings I despise btw)? Huddled round a corner table at Pizza Express?
Boris having dinner at the Garrick with posh climate change deniers isn't a surprise to anyone. As Littlejohn puts it - its the hypocrisy that sticks in the craw. Its saying YOU MUST ACT NOW and then personally doing the complete opposite. One rule for us, another for him. Do as I say you plebs not as I do.
Boris the political act has done an amazing job at making him look like a good chap, one of us. He isn't and never has been, and now and then the persona slips. The danger for him is that people get enough of a look behind the curtain and tear it down. This is the worst crisis he has been in and its entirely his own making.
I agree, especially with your last paragraph, but Paterson has resigned and this morning the news has moved onto Yorkshire CC and back to COP26
I expect an effect in the polls but this debacle has upset a lot of conservative mps with 250 of them compromised
There must be a growing concern within the party over Boris, and I expect the chief whip will come under pressure to resign as he could have prevented this
I would be very pleased to see Boris replaced with Rishi, but I do not expect it to happen for some time but Boris, if he wants to carry on, needs to take this as a serious lesson in how not to behave
If he was capable of learning lessons about how not to behave, he would have done so at a much younger age.
I do have some sympathy for Boris re Paterson as I suspect he was bounced into doing something by Leadsom's gang of fools.
More worrying for Boris is another holiday embarrassment and the plane journey from Glasgow.
Both of which show he doesn't learn from mistakes.
It was Charles Moore who bounced him into it, Moore being friends with Paterson for over 40 years and used the tragedy of Paterson's wife suicide to garner Boris's sympathy, much as Paterson had done himself
I do not think we should be commenting on Paterson's wife's suicide, as we do not know the actual details and the effect on the family, but Boris was weak and let down by the chief whip together with Rees Mogg and Leadsom
This is a huge moment for the conservative party and lessons have to be learnt quickly, though I expect many conservative mps are losing faith in Boris
It would be a cruel irony or at least quite amusing if Boris' undoing was his blind loyalty to one of his MPs.
On the contrary. Paterson was the shield for his own wrongdoings.
I genuinely believe he thought it the right thing to do to stand my Paterson.
If his judgement is so poor as to not understand that paid, undeclared lobbying is wrong, then Johnson is not just amoral but also stupid.
It was declared, in the register of ministerial interests.
(The taking of the money in general was, I think many people don't think warning about carcinogens in food is "lobbying")
It was undeclared in the communications with the Food Standards Agency.
Why do you defend this embarrassing crook? It is doing the Tories no good.
If as he says all he did was warn about carcinogens in food then that's not crooked and its not lobbying.
Do you think someone who knows about carcinogens in food shouldn't report it?
But that’s just the point. He didn’t make a fuss about it, didn’t go to the media, make any speeches - he didn’t do anything to alert the public and press about this apparently grave threat to public health - all he did was write a letter, by amazing coincidence on behalf of a company that was paying him ££££££££££££££££ and some more ££.
Except that he did alert the authorities and got changes as a result that removed the carcinogens and the former Health Secretary and Chair of the Health Select Committee (was he the Health Secretary at the time this happened) has backed him on this and was a signatory to the amendment. That seems significant to me.
Surely the report covers this. It concedes that for a one-off contact OP may have reasonably believed that it was a public interest intervention, but the repeated further contacts could be nothing other than paid lobbying.
Hang on. If you think there's an important issue, it makes sense to contact loads of relevant people about it, doesn't it? Especially if initial contact(s) have not yielded results.
Imagine an MP discovers something safety-critical from a company he is involved with - or, on Labour's side, a trade union he gets money and influence indirectly from. The company may benefit, but the knowledge is for the public good. He raises this issue, but nothing occurs. So they contact more people. One issue, many contacts.
It's different if many contacts are about many different issues.
Also, I'd say there is more latitude if it's a safety-related matter.
Which the Standards Committee acknowledged - and went on to say that he had nonetheless egregiously broken the rules. The fact that Paterson made the same argument for the lobbying on behalf of two separate companies further suggests that he was stretching the exception well beyond breaking point.
And in the case of Randox, it’s not as though there are several other competing testing companies. His lobbying was for the adoption of their product.
It would be a cruel irony or at least quite amusing if Boris' undoing was his blind loyalty to one of his MPs.
On the contrary. Paterson was the shield for his own wrongdoings.
5 live political correspondent this morning has said that this error came about because there was great sympathy for Owen Paterson within the party and it was this that wrongfooted the PM and others. He went on to say that some think this was to try to divert any investigation from Boris, but he said that far too many people are putting 2 and 2 together and getting 5
He went on to say labour have rejected standing aside in the by election as it is not Paterson they would be fighting and therefore they will not agree to a single candidate and will put forward their candidate
It's amazing how Labourites saw Cummings as being shifty and untrustworthy whilst in government, and now, once he is anti the government, whatever he says has to be taken as gospel.
Nope he's still Shifty and Untrustworthy, but regardless of whether he was pro or anti Government some of the points he makes are valid.
Actually looking back at 2020 and the Barnard Castle affair you can see there that Boris isn't great at politics.
There he should have asked Cummings to resign so that Boris could refuse his resignation on importance grounds while on Wednesday he should have allowed Paterson to go while using it as an excuse to attack the process.
Boris just doesn't seem able to think of ways of getting what he wants while keeping people on board so he just blasts through instead.
I think one of the problems Boris has is that he is all tactics, not strategy. He may have a broad aim (become PM), but he does this by a series of reactive tactics, rather than an overwhelming controlling strategy. ("Okay, I'll become an MP. Hang on, this isn't much fun. Cripes! I could be Mayor of London! Oh bugger, I'm in no position to become PM. I'll become an MP again. Oh, which way should I vote on the Brexit referendum? urrm, I'll write two pieces." etc, etc.)
He has been remarkably successful in this (sadly, IMV), but being PM requires a strategy and vision. He is just bumbling along, reacting to events. The mess this week could easily have been avoided if he had either a hard-nosed strategy or an overarching morality. He has neither.
In a way he's a little like Gordon Brown: he desired to become PM, and then when he gets it, he doesn't seem to know what he wants to do with it. In his case he has Covid as an excuse (rightly, this has consumed the government's attention), but I still don't really see what Boris's vision for the country is aside from vacuous platitudes.
I suppose there's 'levelling up', but that's not exactly education, education, education.
Levelling up came, aiui, from Dominic Cummings. This might explain why, with Cummings gone, it is reduced to pork-barrel and blackmail tactics to keep red wall MPs dancing to Number 10's tune.
"It is not clear how much thought was given to all of this. It seems to have followed the Richard Branson logic of 'screw it, let's do it!'.....Various Tory MPs pleaded with the whips not to go through with this madness.
As with the National Insurance tax rise, the Conservatives were given no time to think - or rebel. They were given their orders and obeyed, knowing it would be another Charge of the Light Brigade. It was bound to fail.
They were doing it because a Westminster victory was guaranteed: they are up against a Labour Party so inept as to be a danger only to itself.
The rules might have permitted [Paterson] to double his salary by shilling for corporates, but should he have done so? To accept £100,000 for advising any corporation was always going to raise questions about where his loyalty lay. The Prime Minister ought to have known this.
So within the space of a few weeks, the PM went from needling Cameron about lobbying scandals to plunging the Tories into a scandal of his own.
Thoughtlessness, arrogance, complacency, being tone deaf to public opinion - in the past few days, the Tories have exhibited the traits of an exhausted government in its dying days.
Looking at the way covid infection infections are increasing in Belgium, Hungary, Czechia etc I wonder if the UK has been very fortunate in the timing of having Delta pass through the country.
That is receiving it in the spring, then having transmission accelerated by the July football ie when the vulnerable groups were double vaccinated, having a full six months before winter started and then being able to a large number of boosters into the vulnerable groups before it did so.
Following a fall earlier this year my nan is against her and my grandad's wishes in a care home. Care workers have a choice whether to be vaccinated or not. She has no choice but to be there.
Throughout the pandemic my nan wouldn't let anyone into her home apart from essential people whom she'd keep a distance from, until after the vaccines were rolled out. Now she's compelled to be in a home with people who are potentially unvaccinated putting her life at risk?
If care workers don't give enough of a shit about the people they're caring for that they will get vaccinated to protect them, then I don't think they should be in the care sector.
I realise that we are dealing with probabilities here but vaccinated people can still pass the virus on. I know you don't like unvaccinated people - are you letting this feeling overrule logic? Just sayin'.
I think you have hit on something here. The situation has changed from when these rules were first thought of. At that time it was thought that vaccine would grant immunity. It doesn't. As an alternative it was thought that it significantly reduced the risk of the virus being passed on because you would have a lower viral load. I do not think, with Delta, that there is any compelling evidence of that. What the vaccines do is reduce the risk to the person vaccinated and all sensible people should be vaccinated as a result.
But can we actually say that you being vaccinated makes someone else safer? I am not sure. Maybe. Those who are not vaccinated are, I think, still more likely to become infected and therefore more likely, statistically, to infect others. Whether that risk is both robust and material needs looked at again.
Someone posted some stats the other day (yesterday?) showing reduced transmission for vaxxed people. Would be interested in the detail of that because your understanding is the same as mine - that being vaxxed doesn't significantly reduce the transmission rate (save for viral load, same as someone with the virus but asymptomatic).
It matters a lot in the care homes debate because if it doesn't reduce transmission then the only thing that matters is testing before coming to work for the staff.
Onwards transmission by fully vaccinated people is lower, even with delta. Israel are doing studies on it for people with a booster as well and given the very high protection three doses gives from infection I'd guess the results for onwards transmission will be very good too. All care workers are eligible for three doses of vaccine, which will probably be considered a full course by loads of countries soon (including this one).
Interesting:
"Previous studies have found that people infected with Delta have roughly the same levels of viral genetic materials in their noses regardless of whether they’d previously been vaccinated, suggesting that vaccinated and unvaccinated people might be equally infectious2. But studies also suggest that vaccinated people are less likely to spread the virus if they subsequently catch Delta: their levels of nasal virus drop faster than do those of unvaccinated infected people, and their nasal swabs contain smaller amounts of infectious virus"
There's actually a new PCR variant test which will actually look into whether a person is infectious or not. I suspect what's happening is that in vaccinated people the level of infectious virus never really reaches critical mass but there's still a lot of neutralised viral particles present that are harmless.
Isn’t it rather that viral loads drop more rapidly in vaccinated individuals ?
Anecdata… I just caught it, most likely from my vaccinated daughter.
Isn’t not playing by the rules priced in by Boris supporters? I suspect the bubble wrapped around him will not burst. Those that support him and the Tories will contrive a way to explain it all away. Look at Trump.
I'm not sure about that, when it comes to old networks of power. There are historical class issues in Britain that mean the Red Wall will be made much more furious by Johnson apparently fixing things up with his friends at the Garrick, as compared to the appeal of the cavalier, devil-may-care Trumpian and billionaire lifestyle that many Americans still aspire to in a somewhat different culture.
Will they know what the 'Garrick' is? I'd never heard of the fucking place. Although now I know, it should be firebombed with all possible alacrity.
They will hear about it. We've already had wave after wave of negative reporting about gas boilers where its all cost on YOU to save the environment. Now we have the PM lecturing the world - 1 minute to midnight. Must act NOW. Forget the cost we must do SOMETHING. Who then gets in a private plane to have a pair of Supercharged Range Rovers whisk him to central London to have Chateaubriand in The Garrick.
Never heard of The Garrick you Red Wall plebs? You'd love it. Men only. Rich white men only.
Even Richard Littlejohn is eviscerating the PM over the hypocrisy of this.
Absolutely but hasn't that OE, Bullingdon, privileged ship sailed? Where else would people expect Boris to have dinner with Charles Moore (whose writings I despise btw)? Huddled round a corner table at Pizza Express?
Boris having dinner at the Garrick with posh climate change deniers isn't a surprise to anyone. As Littlejohn puts it - its the hypocrisy that sticks in the craw. Its saying YOU MUST ACT NOW and then personally doing the complete opposite. One rule for us, another for him. Do as I say you plebs not as I do.
Boris the political act has done an amazing job at making him look like a good chap, one of us. He isn't and never has been, and now and then the persona slips. The danger for him is that people get enough of a look behind the curtain and tear it down. This is the worst crisis he has been in and its entirely his own making.
I agree, especially with your last paragraph, but Paterson has resigned and this morning the news has moved onto Yorkshire CC and back to COP26
I expect an effect in the polls but this debacle has upset a lot of conservative mps with 250 of them compromised
There must be a growing concern within the party over Boris, and I expect the chief whip will come under pressure to resign as he could have prevented this
I would be very pleased to see Boris replaced with Rishi, but I do not expect it to happen for some time but Boris, if he wants to carry on, needs to take this as a serious lesson in how not to behave
If he was capable of learning lessons about how not to behave, he would have done so at a much younger age.
I do have some sympathy for Boris re Paterson as I suspect he was bounced into doing something by Leadsom's gang of fools.
More worrying for Boris is another holiday embarrassment and the plane journey from Glasgow.
Both of which show he doesn't learn from mistakes.
But he has learned from his mistakes; he has learned that people let him get away with them.
Isn’t not playing by the rules priced in by Boris supporters? I suspect the bubble wrapped around him will not burst. Those that support him and the Tories will contrive a way to explain it all away. Look at Trump.
I'm not sure about that, when it comes to old networks of power. There are historical class issues in Britain that mean the Red Wall will be made much more furious by Johnson apparently fixing things up with his friends at the Garrick, as compared to the appeal of the cavalier, devil-may-care Trumpian and billionaire lifestyle that many Americans still aspire to in a somewhat different culture.
Will they know what the 'Garrick' is? I'd never heard of the fucking place. Although now I know, it should be firebombed with all possible alacrity.
They will hear about it. We've already had wave after wave of negative reporting about gas boilers where its all cost on YOU to save the environment. Now we have the PM lecturing the world - 1 minute to midnight. Must act NOW. Forget the cost we must do SOMETHING. Who then gets in a private plane to have a pair of Supercharged Range Rovers whisk him to central London to have Chateaubriand in The Garrick.
Never heard of The Garrick you Red Wall plebs? You'd love it. Men only. Rich white men only.
Even Richard Littlejohn is eviscerating the PM over the hypocrisy of this.
Absolutely but hasn't that OE, Bullingdon, privileged ship sailed? Where else would people expect Boris to have dinner with Charles Moore (whose writings I despise btw)? Huddled round a corner table at Pizza Express?
Boris having dinner at the Garrick with posh climate change deniers isn't a surprise to anyone. As Littlejohn puts it - its the hypocrisy that sticks in the craw. Its saying YOU MUST ACT NOW and then personally doing the complete opposite. One rule for us, another for him. Do as I say you plebs not as I do.
Boris the political act has done an amazing job at making him look like a good chap, one of us. He isn't and never has been, and now and then the persona slips. The danger for him is that people get enough of a look behind the curtain and tear it down. This is the worst crisis he has been in and its entirely his own making.
I agree, especially with your last paragraph, but Paterson has resigned and this morning the news has moved onto Yorkshire CC and back to COP26
I expect an effect in the polls but this debacle has upset a lot of conservative mps with 250 of them compromised
There must be a growing concern within the party over Boris, and I expect the chief whip will come under pressure to resign as he could have prevented this
I would be very pleased to see Boris replaced with Rishi, but I do not expect it to happen for some time but Boris, if he wants to carry on, needs to take this as a serious lesson in how not to behave
If he was capable of learning lessons about how not to behave, he would have done so at a much younger age.
I do have some sympathy for Boris re Paterson as I suspect he was bounced into doing something by Leadsom's gang of fools.
More worrying for Boris is another holiday embarrassment and the plane journey from Glasgow.
Both of which show he doesn't learn from mistakes.
It was Charles Moore who bounced him into it, Moore being friends with Paterson for over 40 years and used the tragedy of Paterson's wife suicide to garner Boris's sympathy, much as Paterson had done himself
I do not think we should be commenting on Paterson's wife's suicide, as we do not know the actual details and the effect on the family, but Boris was weak and let down by the chief whip together with Rees Mogg and Leadsom
This is a huge moment for the conservative party and lessons have to be learnt quickly, though I expect many conservative mps are losing faith in Boris
I have huge sympathy for Paterson . What he went through following the death of his wife I would not wish on my worst enemy. But he breached the rules. The two issues are separate, wholly separate, and should remain so (save, possibly, for mitigation of sentence but even then I am uneasy).
I don't agree with Deedes's rhetoric here. Calling Westminster a sewer is no different from Rayner calling Tories "scum" and where did that lead in a church hall in Southend?
Most MPs are decent and hardworking and on behalf of their constituents.
Labour rules out backing an Independent cross-party candidate in North Shropshire a la Martin Bell in Tatton 1997 and will instead stand a Labour candidate
Proof if it were needed that Starmer likes to play by the rules that are stacked against him. He has no political nous, he has no killer instinct.
Imagine, Mr Starmer, every night on the ItV, BBC and Sky News bulletins, corresponds would be following around an "anti- Conservative- sleaze" candidate. How much would that sort of advertising on billboards cost?
BJO is right, Mr Starmer you are a fool.
TBF finding a latter day Martin Bell the whole opposition could get behind is no easy task. Who would you suggest? I think Man U need Marcus Rashford more than Parliament does, at least for the rest of this season. Anyone else?
After yesterday's booster jab, Wor Lass has a very sore arm and a headache.
I was consulting with a solicitor yesterday with significant co-morbidities. He told me that the booster jab put him in bed for a week. My mother in law was the same but we blamed the fact that she had to stand in a queue outside for over an hour for that.
After yesterday's booster jab, Wor Lass has a very sore arm and a headache.
I was consulting with a solicitor yesterday with significant co-morbidities. He told me that the booster jab put him in bed for a week. My mother in law was the same but we blamed the fact that she had to stand in a queue outside for over an hour for that.
Why are you consulting with a solicitor on medical issues? As one myself I can reliably say we're useless at it.
Isn’t not playing by the rules priced in by Boris supporters? I suspect the bubble wrapped around him will not burst. Those that support him and the Tories will contrive a way to explain it all away. Look at Trump.
I'm not sure about that, when it comes to old networks of power. There are historical class issues in Britain that mean the Red Wall will be made much more furious by Johnson apparently fixing things up with his friends at the Garrick, as compared to the appeal of the cavalier, devil-may-care Trumpian and billionaire lifestyle that many Americans still aspire to in a somewhat different culture.
Will they know what the 'Garrick' is? I'd never heard of the fucking place. Although now I know, it should be firebombed with all possible alacrity.
They will hear about it. We've already had wave after wave of negative reporting about gas boilers where its all cost on YOU to save the environment. Now we have the PM lecturing the world - 1 minute to midnight. Must act NOW. Forget the cost we must do SOMETHING. Who then gets in a private plane to have a pair of Supercharged Range Rovers whisk him to central London to have Chateaubriand in The Garrick.
Never heard of The Garrick you Red Wall plebs? You'd love it. Men only. Rich white men only.
Even Richard Littlejohn is eviscerating the PM over the hypocrisy of this.
Absolutely but hasn't that OE, Bullingdon, privileged ship sailed? Where else would people expect Boris to have dinner with Charles Moore (whose writings I despise btw)? Huddled round a corner table at Pizza Express?
Boris having dinner at the Garrick with posh climate change deniers isn't a surprise to anyone. As Littlejohn puts it - its the hypocrisy that sticks in the craw. Its saying YOU MUST ACT NOW and then personally doing the complete opposite. One rule for us, another for him. Do as I say you plebs not as I do.
Boris the political act has done an amazing job at making him look like a good chap, one of us. He isn't and never has been, and now and then the persona slips. The danger for him is that people get enough of a look behind the curtain and tear it down. This is the worst crisis he has been in and its entirely his own making.
I agree, especially with your last paragraph, but Paterson has resigned and this morning the news has moved onto Yorkshire CC and back to COP26
I expect an effect in the polls but this debacle has upset a lot of conservative mps with 250 of them compromised
There must be a growing concern within the party over Boris, and I expect the chief whip will come under pressure to resign as he could have prevented this
I would be very pleased to see Boris replaced with Rishi, but I do not expect it to happen for some time but Boris, if he wants to carry on, needs to take this as a serious lesson in how not to behave
If he was capable of learning lessons about how not to behave, he would have done so at a much younger age.
I do have some sympathy for Boris re Paterson as I suspect he was bounced into doing something by Leadsom's gang of fools.
More worrying for Boris is another holiday embarrassment and the plane journey from Glasgow.
Both of which show he doesn't learn from mistakes.
It was Charles Moore who bounced him into it, Moore being friends with Paterson for over 40 years and used the tragedy of Paterson's wife suicide to garner Boris's sympathy, much as Paterson had done himself
I do not think we should be commenting on Paterson's wife's suicide, as we do not know the actual details and the effect on the family, but Boris was weak and let down by the chief whip together with Rees Mogg and Leadsom
This is a huge moment for the conservative party and lessons have to be learnt quickly, though I expect many conservative mps are losing faith in Boris
I have huge sympathy for Paterson . What he went through following the death of his wife I would not wish on my worst enemy. But he breached the rules. The two issues are separate, wholly separate, and should remain so (save, possibly, for mitigation of sentence but even then I am uneasy).
Comments
https://trib.al/VbmUQSS https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1456539671257882652/video/1
"Previous studies have found that people infected with Delta have roughly the same levels of viral genetic materials in their noses regardless of whether they’d previously been vaccinated, suggesting that vaccinated and unvaccinated people might be equally infectious2. But studies also suggest that vaccinated people are less likely to spread the virus if they subsequently catch Delta: their levels of nasal virus drop faster than do those of unvaccinated infected people, and their nasal swabs contain smaller amounts of infectious virus"
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02689-y
1) the requirement in the NHS has been postponed to the spring.
2) anyone with documented antibodies from infection is as good as immunised
3) vaccinated can still spread covid, so is no substitute for testing and isolation.
4) actions have consequences. A spanner in the works for Social Care significantly worsens ability to discharge patients, and therefore the NHS bed crisis.
A coherent policy would exempt those with previous proven infection, would have been introduced in June not November, include NHS as well as Social Care, and increase funding for Social Care so they could backfill.
He has done so before
I expect an effect in the polls but this debacle has upset a lot of conservative mps with 250 of them compromised
There must be a growing concern within the party over Boris, and I expect the chief whip will come under pressure to resign as he could have prevented this
I would be very pleased to see Boris replaced with Rishi, but I do not expect it to happen for some time but Boris, if he wants to carry on, needs to take this as a serious lesson in how not to behave
What I said about Paterson was that if this affair was a factor in his wife's suicide - as he himself is claiming - then he is ultimately responsible.
But of course, if the only way people feel they can defend him is by making things up, that in itself tells us something.
Read this thread because@mij_Europe has the scoop on *how* it will be done
https://twitter.com/mij_europe/status/1456520115814535186
However he would have to persuade the SNP to not only vote down the Conservatives but make him PM with confidence and supply, as the Tories would still comfortably have most seats he could not become PM otherwise. Most likely he would also need LD support as well but that would be easier to get
However, Paterson himself raised it as part of the investigation, and in the last two days the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House have chosen to mention the suicide and hint that it is a relevant factor in how Paterson should, or should not, be 'punished' for his transgressions.
So if there is speculation about what prompted the suicide, that is entirely the fault of Paterson, the PM and JRM.
Whatever one thinks of Owen Paterson, I am sure he is in a very dark place now (& has been for some time since his wife's death)
It is perfectly possible to feel sympathy for him -- much as I did for Chris Huhne when his life became badly de-railed with intersecting political and personal problems.
And so I can understand why some Tory MPs may have felt some sympathy towards him.
"it’s becoming easier to see how a Tory government ends."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/11/04/tories-behaving-like-tired-government-dying-days/
If things turn bad for them then guess what happens, as if by magic, in the press: it all becomes about Boris plus perhaps one or two of his lieutenants. The party then appears to enter a self-defeating death spiral, with backbenchers tearing into the PM and his personal ratings tumbling.
But then, what's this? a 1922 committee vote; a leadership election; a new, youthful and popular leader emerges, untainted by the shenanigans of the last 3 years despite being, um, chancellor of the exchequer throughout that time. And hey presto the party is reborn and back to 45% in the polls.
Snap election, big majority, job done. Until the next palace coup and the next performative metamorphosis.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59167967
"Cut through" with the public on this specific issue is not the problem. It's that he has humiliated his own MPs for no good reason. That leads to a divided Parliamentary party (at the very least) and we know what the public thinks of them...
Actually looking back at 2020 and the Barnard Castle affair you can see there that Boris isn't great at politics.
There he should have asked Cummings to resign so that Boris could refuse his resignation on importance grounds while on Wednesday he should have allowed Paterson to go while using it as an excuse to attack the process.
Boris just doesn't seem able to think of ways of getting what he wants while keeping people on board so he just blasts through instead.
Even 6/1 is being generous to Labour majority chances
This morning at 1 I woke up with all the symptoms of Covid. Fever, digestive trouble, muscle fatigue/spasms, and a cough.
I did an LFT and it came back negative.
I got in touch with my boss and she ordered me to get a PCR on the grounds that LFTs usually do not pick up on symptomatic cases.
Which, given they are also pretty useless for asymptomatic cases, makes me wonder just what the fecking point of them is.
From recent threads it's clear the attitude of some on here would have been: "See, he's not mentioning it; he's ashamed of her death! He caused it!"
But chucking the circumstances of her death into the debate in the Commons and on the media, and trying to use it as a stick to beat the standards commissioner, was shameful.
Someone has to govern the country. It would be rather good if there were more than one electable party. ATM that number is veering between one and zero. Could someone teach Labour the great trick of staying the same while utterly transforming?
https://order-order.com/2021/11/03/read-amendment-in-full-tory-mps-launch-coup-against-standards-committee/
They weren’t happy with Booze sponsors or betting companies as sponsors and now Randox is bad because of OP!
They really can’t help themselves - it’s the same thing where they campaigned and railed against companies such as BP pumping millions into sponsoring and supporting Art Galleries etc so BP and co withdraw then the Guardian starts wailing about galleries struggling for funding and so the government must spend more tax payer money on them.
Maybe they should accept that it’s better to have the money from the likes of BP and Randox and other “evil” companies as at least then there is some public good out of the profits made by the unacceptables……
Mogg’s opposite number, Shadow Commons Leader Thangam Debbonaire, built herself into a blizzard of fury. She was loving every second, hopping about excitedly at the dispatch box. ‘Shameful!’ she bellowed.
Ms Debbonaire is something of a motor-mouth and, despite her clear estimation of her comic ability, is about funny as a funeral. So when she gets to dance her merry jig at the Government’s expense, they really have cocked up.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-10167701/HENRY-DEEDES-No10s-embarrassing-Tory-sleaze-u-turn.html
More worrying for Boris is another holiday embarrassment and the plane journey from Glasgow.
Both of which show he doesn't learn from mistakes.
https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-lateral-flow-tests-are-more-accurate-than-previously-thought-researchers-find-12433421
Hours later, Paterson announced his departure. Sighs of relief from Tory HQ. No sooner had he began clearing his desk than former Labour MP Claudia Webbe was being handed a ten-week suspended sentence for threatening to throw acid on another woman. It’s a sewer Westminster, it really is.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-10167701/HENRY-DEEDES-No10s-embarrassing-Tory-sleaze-u-turn.html
But that isn't true. We have the Electoral Commission report into the PM about to drop, and we have the "she must resign" Independent Standards Commissioner going after him.
"Vote for this or you lose your town's funding" must have seriously wound red-wallers up. So the willingness to back Boris will be weaker than it was a few days ago.
Good time then for Boris to go to WAR with the EU.
He has been remarkably successful in this (sadly, IMV), but being PM requires a strategy and vision. He is just bumbling along, reacting to events. The mess this week could easily have been avoided if he had either a hard-nosed strategy or an overarching morality. He has neither.
In a way he's a little like Gordon Brown: he desired to become PM, and then when he gets it, he doesn't seem to know what he wants to do with it. In his case he has Covid as an excuse (rightly, this has consumed the government's attention), but I still don't really see what Boris's vision for the country is aside from vacuous platitudes.
I suppose there's 'levelling up', but that's not exactly education, education, education.
Depends on how well they are taken I suspect.
A friend last week had symptoms such as yours, took a LFT and the result was a very quick indication of a positive. It was very clear.
Biased sources are still sources. Their words are to be considered in that context, not thrown out automatically.
Perhaps OGH needs to split PB into “PB left.com” and “PB right.com” so we can sit in our bubbles and not have to be exposed to things we don’t agree with!!
After yesterday's booster jab, Wor Lass has a very sore arm and a headache.
Or they throw him overboard and install Dishi. And win re-election.
Bit like the legal principle that if someone is proven to have lied under oath, everything they say....
Rishi's window of opportunity is rapidly closing, and the government need to hope they can make the other side of the swamp before the bell goes in 2024.
The government will do their best to yank the political and economic cycles back into synch, and it's not beyond their capabilities.
But the timing is awfully tight.
So I suspect that's where it's coming from.
The reality is that you really should listen to the other side to ensure you don't end up down a left or right wing rabbit hole.
Imagine, Mr Starmer, every night on the ItV, BBC and Sky News bulletins, corresponds would be following around an "anti- Conservative- sleaze" candidate. How much would that sort of advertising on billboards cost?
BJO is right, Mr Starmer you are a fool.
I do not think we should be commenting on Paterson's wife's suicide, as we do not know the actual details and the effect on the family, but Boris was weak and let down by the chief whip together with Rees Mogg and Leadsom
This is a huge moment for the conservative party and lessons have to be learnt quickly, though I expect many conservative mps are losing faith in Boris
The fact that Paterson made the same argument for the lobbying on behalf of two separate companies further suggests that he was stretching the exception well beyond breaking point.
And in the case of Randox, it’s not as though there are several other competing testing companies. His lobbying was for the adoption of their product.
As with the National Insurance tax rise, the Conservatives were given no time to think - or rebel. They were given their orders and obeyed, knowing it would be another Charge of the Light Brigade. It was bound to fail.
They were doing it because a Westminster victory was guaranteed: they are up against a Labour Party so inept as to be a danger only to itself.
The rules might have permitted [Paterson] to double his salary by shilling for corporates, but should he have done so? To accept £100,000 for advising any corporation was always going to raise questions about where his loyalty lay. The Prime Minister ought to have known this.
So within the space of a few weeks, the PM went from needling Cameron about lobbying scandals to plunging the Tories into a scandal of his own.
Thoughtlessness, arrogance, complacency, being tone deaf to public opinion - in the past few days, the Tories have exhibited the traits of an exhausted government in its dying days.
That is receiving it in the spring, then having transmission accelerated by the July football ie when the vulnerable groups were double vaccinated, having a full six months before winter started and then being able to a large number of boosters into the vulnerable groups before it did so.
Anecdata… I just caught it, most likely from my vaccinated daughter.
Until one day they don't, obvs.
Most MPs are decent and hardworking and on behalf of their constituents.
There is however a nasty cold, with a cough, that is going around now.